G.R. No. 8991 ; September 11, 1913
CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN, plaintiff, vs. ALBERTO BARRETTO, as judge of First Instance of Rizal, GODOFREDO B. HERRERA, municipal president of Caloocan, LOPE K. SANTOS, provincial governor, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, and JOSE JAVIER, defendants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Constancio Joaquin filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to compel the issuance of a cockpit license. During the proceedings, defendants raised the question of the disqualification of the presiding judge, Hon. Alberto Barretto. In open court, defendants recognized there was no legal ground for disqualification but appealed to the judge’s “extreme delicacy” (extremada delicadeza). Judge Barretto, while convinced of his legal competency, voluntarily retired from the case solely for reasons of extreme delicacy. Plaintiff then filed this petition for mandamus to compel Judge Barretto to proceed with the trial, arguing that extreme delicacy is not a legal ground for disqualification. Defendants, in their answer, raised for the first time the allegation that the judge was disqualified because he had previously acted as attorney in a related matter.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel Judge Barretto to proceed with the trial of the case from which he voluntarily retired based solely on “extreme delicacy,” in the absence of a legal ground for disqualification.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus. The Court held that the ground of “extreme delicacy” is not a legal basis for a judge to disqualify himself. The judge’s order of retirement was based solely on that untenable ground and not on the legal ground of having been an attorney in the case. If the latter ground was presented, it was rejected by the judge. The Court further held that questions regarding a judge’s disqualification should first be presented to and decided by the Court of First Instance itself. Since the judge’s order did not state facts sufficient to justify his withdrawal, it was set aside. The judge was ordered to proceed with the trial, without prejudice to his right to hear and determine any proper objections to his competency as required by law. The demurrer to the defendants’ answers was sustained.