G.R. No. L-40603 July 13, 1978
PALMARIN Q. HURTADO, petitioner, vs. ISABEL G. JUDALENA and HON. ARSENIO M. GONONG, in his capacity as Judge in the CFI of Ilocos Norte, Batac branch, respondents.

FACTS

On March 14, 1975, private respondent Isabel G. Judalena filed a complaint for injunction against petitioner Palmarin Q. Hurtado before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. Judalena alleged that Hurtado, after purchasing a 75-square-meter portion of her land, constructed a fence and began building a house beyond the agreed area, encroaching upon her property. She prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction to halt the construction. Hurtado filed his answer on March 31, 1975, denying the encroachment and asserting ownership over the disputed portion.
Despite being the brother of the plaintiff, Isabel G. Judalena, respondent Judge Arsenio M. Gonong issued an ex-parte order on April 2, 1975, directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond. The writ was subsequently issued. On April 5, 1975, Judge Gonong voluntarily disqualified himself from the case due to his close relationship with the plaintiff and ordered the records transferred for reassignment. Hurtado moved to dissolve the writ, but the judge, despite having already inhibited, denied the motion on April 21, 1975.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in taking cognizance of the case and issuing the ex-parte writ of preliminary injunction despite being disqualified by law due to his relationship with the plaintiff.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and annulled the order issuing the writ. The legal logic is grounded on the mandatory and absolute nature of judicial disqualification under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court. The rule expressly and unambiguously prohibits a judge from sitting in any case where he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity. This disqualification is not discretionary; it is compulsory and designed to preserve the fundamental requirement of judicial impartiality and public confidence in the judiciary.
In this case, it was undisputed that respondent Judge Gonong was the brother of the private respondent. His act of taking cognizance of the case and issuing the ex-parte injunction order was a clear violation of this mandatory prohibition. The Court found his subsequent voluntary inhibition irrelevant to the validity of his prior actions, which were void from the beginning. By proceeding despite a known legal impediment, the judge committed a grave abuse of discretion, as his entire authority to act in the case was negated by the disqualifying relationship. The Court emphasized that such conduct erodes essential public trust and cannot be tolerated. Consequently, all orders issued by the disqualified judge were declared null and void.