G.R. No. 167899; August 6, 2008
Willie Ong, doing business under the name and style EXCEL Fitness Center, petitioner, vs. Lucia N. Basco (and husband Antonio Basco, as nominal party), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Willie Ong was ordered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to pay respondent Lucia Basco moral and exemplary damages. Ong filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a separate Motion for Inhibition against the trial judge, Judge Amor A. Reyes, alleging bias and partiality. Judge Reyes denied both motions in a single Order. Ong then filed a Notice of Appeal from the main decision. Simultaneously, he filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, specifically challenging the denial of his Motion for Inhibition.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition. It ruled that certiorari was improper because Ong had already availed of the adequate remedy of ordinary appeal. It further held that absent clear evidence of bad faith, repeated adverse rulings do not establish bias warranting a judge’s disqualification.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari, ruling that it was not the proper remedy from the denial of the Motion for Inhibition?

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Here, Ong had already perfected an ordinary appeal from the RTC’s main decision. Section 2, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that no appeal or stay is allowed from a judge’s decision in favor of her own competency “until after final judgment in the case.” Consequently, the issue of the judge’s alleged bias and the propriety of denying the inhibition motion can and should be raised within that ordinary appeal. An appeal affords adequate and expeditious relief for such a claim.
While certiorari may be resorted to in exceptional cases even after a judgment, such as when a denial of inhibition is made before judgment and there is a clear showing of grave abuse, no such circumstance exists here. The allegations of bias were based merely on the judge’s adverse rulings and her having taken over the case only at the memorandum stage. Bias and partiality cannot be presumed from these; they must be proven by clear and convincing evidence of extrajudicial source or deep-seated favoritism. Ong failed to present such evidence. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction was committed by Judge Reyes, making certiorari an improper remedy.