GR 180543; (August, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180543; August 18, 2010
KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION and BANTAY KATARUNGAN FOUNDATION, as represented by JOVITO R. SALONGA, Petitioners, vs. LEONCIO M. JANOLO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 264, PASIG CITY; GREGORY S. ONG, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SANDIGANBAYAN; and THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA, Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Gregory S. Ong filed a petition under Rule 108 to amend the entry on citizenship in his Certificate of Birth before the RTC of Pasig, presided by Judge Leoncio Janolo, Jr. Petitioners, as oppositors, filed a motion for voluntary inhibition against the judge, citing that the judge, Ong, and Ong’s counsel were all members of the San Beda Law Alumni Association, which had publicly endorsed Ong’s petition. The RTC denied the motion a day after it was filed, prior to a hearing. Despite the pendency of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, the court proceeded with hearings and subsequently declared petitioners in default for their alleged failure to file an opposition. The RTC later granted Ong’s petition, recognizing him as a natural-born Filipino citizen.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) not voluntarily inhibiting; (2) declaring petitioners in default; and (3) granting Ong’s petition for correction of entries.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On procedural grounds, petitioners disregarded the hierarchy of courts without alleging special reasons for direct recourse. The verification was defective for not stating it was based on personal knowledge or authentic records, and petitioners failed to serve a copy on a public respondent. Nevertheless, the Court resolved the substantive issues. On the merits, the motion for inhibition was correctly denied. Mere membership in the same alumni association, without proof of bias or partiality, is insufficient for mandatory inhibition. The order of default was also proper. Petitioners, as oppositors, were required to file a written opposition under Rule 108. Their mere filing of a motion for inhibition did not constitute an answer or opposition to the petition. The default order was a valid consequence of their failure to file the required pleading. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s proceedings.