GR 27086; (July, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27086 July 24, 1981
DELFIN LIM, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUDGE PEDRO CALLEJO, JR., as Judge of the Municipal Court of Balabac, Palawan, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Delfin Lim was charged with Illegal Possession of Dynamite before the Municipal Court of Balabac, presided by Judge Pedro Callejo, Jr. Before his arraignment, Lim’s counsel sent a telegram to Judge Callejo requesting his disqualification on the ground that Lim had filed an administrative complaint against the judge with the Department of Justice. Judge Callejo denied the telegraphic motion, reasoning that the filing of a complaint after the institution of the criminal case was not a proper ground for disqualification under Rule 137 and could set a dangerous precedent for obstructing justice.
Lim then filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction with the Court of First Instance of Palawan, seeking to restrain Judge Callejo from trying the criminal case. The CFI issued a preliminary injunction upon Lim’s posting of a cash bond. Judge Callejo, through the Provincial Fiscal, moved to dismiss the petition. The CFI granted the motion, dismissing the petition and holding Lim’s cash bond answerable for any damages Judge Callejo might claim. Lim appealed this order.
ISSUE
The issues were: (1) whether the CFI erred in dismissing the petition for prohibition, and (2) whether it erred in holding the cash bond answerable for damages claimed by the respondent judge.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for prohibition but reversed the order regarding the cash bond. For a writ of prohibition to issue under Rule 65, two requisites must concur: a tribunal must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there must be no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Neither requisite was present. Judge Callejo did not gravely abuse his discretion in denying the disqualification motion. The alleged filing of an administrative complaint is not, by itself, a ground for disqualification under Section 1, Rule 137. Moreover, the proper remedy against the denial was not prohibition but an appeal after a final judgment in the criminal case, as established in Paredes v. Gopengco. Thus, the CFI correctly dismissed the petition.
Regarding the cash bond, the Court ruled it should not be held answerable for damages. Judge Callejo was sued in his official capacity. Any expense or damage incurred by him in defending the prohibition suit would be official in nature, not private. Therefore, no private bond should answer for such potential claims. The portion of the CFI order pertaining to the bond was set aside.