GR 180543; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180543 , July 27, 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 birth certificate. The case was raffled to the RTC of Pasig, Branch 264, presided by Judge Leoncio M. Janolo, Jr. Petitioners, as oppositors, filed a motion for voluntary inhibition against Judge Janolo, citing his and Ong’s membership in 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 RTC proceeded with hearings and subsequently declared petitioners in default for non-appearance. The RTC later granted Ong’s petition, recognizing him as a natural-born Filipino citizen.
Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition directly with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC’s denial of the inhibition motion, the order of default, and the final decision. They alleged grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the RTC’s orders and decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Procedurally, the petition was defective for disregarding the hierarchy of courts without alleging special and important reasons for direct filing. The verification was also defective for not stating it was based on personal knowledge or authentic records, rendering it an unsigned pleading. Furthermore, petitioners failed to serve a copy on one public respondent, a ground for dismissal.
Substantively, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of inhibition, membership in the same alumni association, without more, is not a valid ground for disqualification under the Rules of Court. The test for bias is whether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The alleged bias was not substantiated. On the order of default, the RTC did not commit grave abuse. A party may be declared in default for failure to appear at a pre-trial or hearing. Petitioners’ counsel failed to appear at the August 21 hearing despite notice. Their claim of awaiting the resolution of their motion for reconsideration on inhibition did not excuse their absence, as no restraining order was issued. The RTC’s subsequent grant of Ong’s petition was a judgment on the merits, which petitioners, having been validly declared in default, could not assail via certiorari absent a showing of grave abuse in the default declaration itself. No such abuse was found.