GR 171765; (March, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171765 ; March 21, 2012
THE INCORPORATORS OF MINDANAO INSTITUTE INC. and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MINDANAO INSTITUTE INC., represented by ENGR. VICTORIOSO D. UDARBE, Petitioners, vs. THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, acting through AGUSAN DISTRICT CONFERENCE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, represented by REV. RODOLFO BASLOT, Respondent.
FACTS
The incorporators of Mindanao Institute Inc. (petitioners) filed a petition for declaratory relief against the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to declare MI as the sole owner of its assets and to prevent UCCP’s takeover. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of the petitioners. Concurrently, UCCP and MI’s president filed a separate complaint to nullify MI’s amended articles of incorporation, alleging the amendments violated the Corporation Code as they were passed without the required majority vote.
During a joint hearing for both cases, UCCP’s collaborating counsel was from a law firm where a partner was the son of the presiding Executive Judge, Orlando F. Doyon. UCCP’s lead counsel moved for Judge Doyon’s inhibition, but the petitioners’ counsel expressed no objection. Judge Doyon denied the motion and proceeded, later granting the preliminary injunction. UCCP challenged this order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the RTC’s order granting the preliminary injunction due to the judge’s failure to voluntarily inhibit himself.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction. The core legal principle is that a judge must voluntarily inhibit when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Under Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct, inhibition is mandatory if a judge is related to counsel within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity.
Here, Judge Doyon’s son was a partner in the law firm appearing as collaborating counsel for the adverse party, UCCP. This relationship falls within the prohibited degree, making the judge’s inhibition compulsory. His continued handling of the case created a well-grounded suspicion of partiality, undermining public confidence in the judicial system. The grant of the preliminary injunction, a discretionary and equitable remedy, was tainted by this appearance of bias. Therefore, the proceedings and the order issuing the injunction were void. The proper course was for the judge to recuse himself immediately upon the motion, and his failure to do so warranted the nullification of the assailed order. The case was remanded for further proceedings before a different judge.