G.R. No. 79303 June 20, 1989
SPOUSES ARCANGEL GENOBLAZO and ELISA NANTES and ARELI DE FIESTA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE NATIVIDAD G. ADURRU-SANTILLAN, as the Presiding Judge of Branch XXXVIII of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, ROMULO M. DEL ROSARIO, as City Engineer and Building Official of Manila, CARMEN VDA. DE REYES, JAIME DE LOS REYES, PATROLMAN DOMINGO GUILLEN and PATROLMAN EDGAR VILLANUEVA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a civil case claiming ownership by acquisitive prescription of two lots in Manila and sought to enjoin private respondents from demolishing structures thereon. Private respondents, as registered owners under a Torrens title, relied on a Demolition Order issued by the City Engineer, alleging the structures were dangerous. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order. Subsequently, private respondents moved to cite petitioners in contempt for allegedly violating the order by expanding their makeshift dwelling. Petitioners then filed an urgent motion for a writ of preliminary injunction.
The respondent trial judge, after a hearing, denied the writ in an Order dated July 1, 1985. The court found petitioners’ evidence of possession insufficient, upheld the respondents’ title, and ruled the City Engineer acted within his authority under the National Building Code. The order confirmed respondents’ ownership and set the unresolved issues of possession and damages for pre-trial. Petitioners did not move for reconsideration but instead filed a motion for the judge’s disqualification on grounds of partiality and prejudgment. They later filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding certiorari was not the proper remedy; (2) Whether the trial court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and its subsequent orders constituted grave abuse of discretion; and (3) Whether the trial judge should have been disqualified.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. On the propriety of certiorari, the Court ruled that the special civil action is not a substitute for a lost appeal and is only available for correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The trial court’s denial of the preliminary injunction was an exercise of its judicial discretion based on its evaluation of the evidence, including the validity of the Torrens title and the legality of the demolition order. No grave abuse of discretion was shown, as the findings had a legal and factual basis. Thus, any error was correctible by appeal, not certiorari.
Regarding the motion for inhibition, the Court held that the alleged partiality and prejudgment were not among the specific grounds for mandatory disqualification under the Rules of Court. While a judge may voluntarily inhibit for just reasons, mere allegations are insufficient; concrete evidence is required. Petitioners failed to provide such proof. Furthermore, the trial judge acted within her discretion to proceed with the case after deciding in favor of her own competency, especially since the motion for inhibition did not suspend the proceedings. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.