GR 152328; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152328. March 23, 2004
SPOUSES LEOPOLDO HIZON and PERLITA DELA FUENTE HIZON, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES GIGI DELA FUENTE and JOSEPHINE MANGAHAS, SPOUSES JORGE MAGBITANG and ADELAIDA VILLACORTA MAGBITANG, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Hizon filed an action for reconveyance, annulment of sale, and damages against the private respondents. They also sought a preliminary injunction to restrain respondents from possessing a commercial apartment on the disputed land. During the hearing on the injunction, petitioners alleged that the presiding judge, Judge D. Roy A. Masadao, Jr., exhibited extreme bias and partiality in favor of the respondents. They cited specific instances, such as the judge intervening during cross-examination to question materiality, suggesting lines of questioning to respondents’ counsel, and personally cross-examining a witness for petitioners.
Consequently, petitioners filed a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition. Judge Masadao denied the motion, finding no substantiation for the claims of bias. The Court of Appeals dismissed the subsequent petition for certiorari, upholding the trial court’s order. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the appellate court erred in ignoring facts and jurisprudence supporting the judge’s disqualification.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for his voluntary inhibition.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the standard for voluntary inhibition under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. While a judge may disqualify himself for just or valid reasons to avoid any perception of bias, the discretion is not unfettered. Mere imputation or suspicion of partiality is insufficient; there must be clear and convincing evidence of bias stemming from an extrajudicial source or a manifest showing of prejudice.
The Court upheld the findings of the Court of Appeals that the judge’s actions—propounding questions for clarification, intervening to expedite proceedings, and focusing on material evidence—were within his prerogative and duty to control the conduct of trial. A judge is not a passive referee but may actively participate to clarify issues and prevent unnecessary waste of time. The petitioners failed to present hard evidence of partiality. Disagreement with a judge’s rulings or active courtroom management does not constitute valid grounds for inhibition absent proof of actual prejudice. Therefore, the denial of the motion for voluntary inhibition was proper.