A.M. No. 2128-JC. August 31, 1978. CONSTANTE PIMENTEL, petitioner, Request for the designation of another judge to hear the Motion for Reconsideration and/or Petition for Relief from the decision rendered in Criminal Case No. 310-C, People vs. Ruben de la Cruz.
FACTS:

This administrative matter arose from Criminal Case No. 310-C for Homicide with Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property Thru Reckless Imprudence, filed against Ruben de la Cruz following a 1975 vehicular accident in Candon, Ilocos Sur. The Court of First Instance, Branch IV, acquitted the accused. The private prosecutor, petitioner Constante Pimentel, initially filed a notice of appeal concerning the civil liability but withdrew it.
Subsequently, the private prosecutor, contemplating a motion for reconsideration, alleged that a key exhibit—the English translation of a custodial declaration—had been falsified by the addition of the phrase “beside the jeep,” which allegedly altered the evidence’s meaning. Instead of filing a formal motion for the judge’s disqualification, the petitioner directly requested the Supreme Court to designate another judge to hear the motion for reconsideration. The request was based on the serious accusation that the incumbent judge, Judge Daniel C. Macaraeg, had “induced and encouraged the falsification.”

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petitioner’s request to designate another judge to hear the motion for reconsideration, bypassing the prescribed procedure for judicial disqualification.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the request. The Court emphasized that the procedure for the disqualification of judges under Rule 137 of the Rules of Court must be substantially followed. This rule requires that an objection to a judge’s competency be filed in writing with the judge himself, who shall then determine the matter of his qualification.
The petitioner’s unverified letter containing a mere allegation of falsification and misconduct by Judge Macaraeg was insufficient to justify the extraordinary remedy of having the Supreme Court designate a different judge. The proper recourse was for the petitioner to first avail himself of the statutory procedure by filing a verified motion for disqualification before the trial court. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner himself indicated that a separate formal charge for falsification and an administrative case were being prepared, which suggested that the instant letter should not be treated as a formal administrative complaint. Therefore, absent compliance with the established rule, the request was without merit and was accordingly denied.