GR 111074; (July, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111074 ; July 14, 2000
EMILIO O. OROLA, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE O. ALOVERA in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City (Branch 17), and MANUEL LASERNA OROLA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Emilio O. Orola was the appointed administrator of the intestate estate of his deceased wife, Trinidad. Among the estate assets were seven parcels of land. In 1976, Emilio, acting for himself and as judicial administrator, executed a “Waiver of Rights” over his interests in these lots in favor of his six children from the first marriage. The children later filed an “Acceptance of Waiver or Donation” in 1987. Over time, the familial relationship deteriorated, with the children allegedly leasing estate properties without court approval. In 1990, Emilio filed a “Motion to Cancel Documents,” seeking to nullify the Waiver and related lease contracts for lack of probate court approval. This triggered a motion from his son, respondent Manuel, to remove Emilio as administrator.
The presiding judge, respondent Judge Jose O. Alovera, heard the competing motions. Emilio filed a motion for the judge’s inhibition, alleging bias due to the judge’s active participation in questioning witnesses and his statements during hearings, which petitioner claimed demonstrated prejudgment. The judge denied the motion for inhibition, prompting Emilio to elevate the issue, arguing that the judge’s conduct violated his right to an impartial tribunal.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion warranting his inhibition from the case.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The core issue of the judge’s inhibition was rendered moot and academic by the judge’s compulsory retirement from service, which occurred during the pendency of the appeal. Consequently, there was no longer any actual substantial relief that could be granted regarding the challenged order denying inhibition.
Nevertheless, the Court seized the opportunity to reiterate fundamental judicial ethics. It emphasized that a judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be so to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. The ruling stresses that where a judge’s actions give rise to perceptions of bias, whether well-grounded or not, the proper and ideal course is for the judge to voluntarily recuse himself. This self-discipline is essential to preserve the people’s faith in the courts. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions for the new presiding judge to expedite the settlement of the estate within three months.