G.R. No. L-1061 : October 10, 1902
JUARDO & CO., plaintiff, vs. HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, defendant.

FACTS:
During a hearing on a motion filed by Jurado & Co., the attorney for the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation challenged the competency of one of the Justices of the Supreme Court to sit in the case. The challenge was based on the ground that the said Justice had previously acted as fiscal (prosecutor) in a matter related to the case. The challenge was made orally during the hearing.

ISSUE:
What is the proper procedure for the Supreme Court to follow in deciding a challenge to the competency of one of its Justices, and is the challenge in this case meritorious?

RULING:
The Supreme Court, interpreting Article 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that when a challenge to the competency of a Justice of this Court is raised, the proper procedure is for the challenged Justice to sit with the Court, and the question of competency is to be decided by the Court as a body. The Court rejected the construction that the challenged magistrate should decide the question alone, as well as the construction that the Court should decide while excluding the challenged Justice, as the latter could allow a party to paralyze proceedings by challenging multiple Justices.

On the merits, the Court examined the record and found no basis for the challenge. The prior action of the Justice, while serving as fiscal, was a mere procedural request to compel a lower court judge to submit a required report and did not involve expressing an opinion on the merits of the present case. Although the challenge should have been made in writing under the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court opted to settle the question substantively. The challenge was disallowed, and the hearing of the motion was ordered to continue.