G.R. No. L-23710 September 30, 1969
ANTONIO PAREDES, in his capacity as Judge, Branch II, City Court of Manila; ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, as Mayor of the City of Manila; and LADISLAO J. TOLENTINO, as City Engineer of Manila, petitioners, vs. HON. SIMEON M. GOPENGCO, in his capacity as Judge, Branch XXV, Court of First Instance of Manila, MANUFACTURERS BUILDING, INC., and AMBROSIO PADILLA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Mayor Antonio Villegas and City Engineer Ladislao J. Tolentino were accused of malicious mischief before the City Court of Manila. The case was assigned to petitioner Judge Antonio Paredes. Respondents Manufacturers Building, Inc. and Ambrosio Padilla, joined verbally by the Assistant City Fiscal, filed a motion asking Judge Paredes to voluntarily inhibit or disqualify himself. The motion alleged that the counsel for the accused was the law firm of Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno, of which former Senator Quintin Paredes, father of Judge Paredes, was the senior partner. Judge Paredes denied the motion, principally on the ground that the law firm was not the counsel of record in the case and thus the matter was not covered by the rule disqualifying a judge related to counsel. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction with the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided by Judge Simeon Gopengco, to annul Judge Paredes’ order and restrain him from proceeding with the trial. Judge Gopengco issued a restraining order and later a writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners then filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul Judge Gopengco’s orders, contending he acted with grave abuse of discretion by disregarding Section 2, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which states that “no appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, (the trial judge’s) decision in favor of his own competency, until after final judgment in the case.”

ISSUE

Whether the restrictive provision in Section 2 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court against appeal or stay of proceedings when a trial judge denies a motion to disqualify himself applies in criminal cases where such disqualification is sought by the prosecution or offended party.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the restrictive provision in Section 2 of Rule 137 does not apply in criminal cases where the disqualification is sought by the prosecution or offended party. The Court held that in such a scenario, if the trial judge proceeds and acquits the accused, the prosecution or offended party would have no right to appeal the judgment of acquittal due to the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. Consequently, they would have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the judge’s ruling on his competency. Their only means to seek review of the denial of the disqualification motion was through the extraordinary remedies of prohibition and certiorari. The Court clarified that where the accused seeks disqualification, the general restriction would apply, as the accused could raise the issue on appeal if convicted. The Court also noted that, considering the circumstances (the law firm of the judge’s father had represented the accused mayor and was allegedly his continuing counsel), it was in the best interests of justice for Judge Paredes to inhibit himself from the case. The petition was dismissed.