G.R. No. L-55939. May 29, 1981.
FLORITA SARDINIA-LINCO, Assistant Provincial Fiscal, FRANCISCO MA. GUERRERO, Senior State Counsel, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. Honorable GREGORIO G. PINEDA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, et al., respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a petition for certiorari filed by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Florita Sardinia-Linco and Senior State Counsel Francisco Ma. Guerrero, challenging several orders issued by respondent Judge Gregorio G. Pineda in Criminal Case No. 27743, an anti-graft case against private respondents. The petitioners, prosecuting the case, sought to set aside the judge’s orders which denied their motion for his inhibition, found them guilty of contempt, and terminated the rebuttal stage of the trial, deeming the case submitted for decision upon the filing of memoranda. A preliminary issue was whether the People of the Philippines, as the real party in interest, should be formally impleaded.
The motion for inhibition was grounded on allegations of bias and a strained relationship between the judge and the private complainant, Augusto Syjuco, Jr. The record indicated mutual hostility, with Syjuco expressing mistrust and the judge having made remarks in a prior administrative matter suggesting Syjuco feared acquittal because he “could not corrupt” the judge. The contempt citation arose from the prosecutors’ conduct during hearings, which the judge deemed disrespectful. The order terminating rebuttal evidence was issued after the prosecution failed to present a witness on the scheduled date.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether the People of the Philippines should be impleaded; (2) Whether the judge’s orders on contempt and termination of rebuttal evidence should be annulled; and (3) Whether the judge should be disqualified from the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court resolved the issues as follows. First, it unanimously ordered that the People of the Philippines be deemed impleaded as a petitioner, but dispensed with requiring a comment from the Solicitor General. On the merits, the Court unanimously set aside the order terminating the rebuttal evidence and submitting the case for decision. It ordered the reopening of the case to allow the People a 30-day period to present rebuttal evidence, recognizing the prosecution’s right to a full opportunity to present its case. The Court also unanimously set aside the contempt order against the prosecutors, finding it unwarranted.
However, on the issue of disqualification, the petition was denied for lack of the necessary votes. Five Justices voted against disqualifying Judge Pineda, while four, including the Chief Justice, voted in favor. The minority, in their memoranda, emphasized the principle of due process requiring the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge” and cited the apparent mutual hostility and mistrust between the judge and the private complainant as grounds for inhibition to preserve the integrity of the proceedings. The majority’s position resulted in the denial of this aspect of the petition.