G.R. No. L-26826 August 29, 1969
BALDOMERO S. LUQUE, petitioner, vs. JUDGE UNION C. KAYANAN, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Quezon Province and Lucena City, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Baldomero S. Luque, a lawyer and a defendant and cross-defendant in Civil Case No. 4871 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, seeks to prohibit respondent Judge Union C. Kayanan from taking cognizance of said case and to compel its return to Branch I. The case was originally filed in Branch I, presided by Judge Gabriel Valero. Respondent Judge Kayanan, whose regular station was in Calauag, Quezon (Branch IV), was authorized by administrative orders to hold court in Lucena City. On November 5, 1965, Civil Case No. 4871 appeared on the calendar of Judge Kayanan’s sala in Lucena City instead of Branch I. Petitioner, who was at Branch I, missed the hearing. Subsequent hearings led to disagreements over scheduling and orders. Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify respondent judge, accusing him of “doctoring” court records, showing bias, and committing anomalies. Respondent judge found the motion contemptuous for using insolent and disrespectful language, found petitioner in direct contempt, fined him, and later verbally ordered his detention for two hours. Petitioner’s petition for impeachment of the judge was dismissed by the Supreme Court. His petition for prohibition and mandamus was initially filed with the Court of Appeals but was thwarted, prompting this direct petition.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Union C. Kayanan is disqualified from hearing Civil Case No. 4871 and whether he acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in his conduct of the case and in citing petitioner for contempt.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition.
1. On Disqualification: The Court held that respondent judge was not disqualified under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, as the grounds alleged by petitioner (bias, partiality, “doctoring” of records) did not fall under the specific statutory grounds for mandatory disqualification. However, the Court emphasized that a judge may, in the exercise of sound discretion, disqualify himself for just or valid reasons to promote public confidence in the judiciary. The Court found that the controversy and the mutual antagonism between petitioner and respondent judge had created a situation where respondent judge’s continuance in the case would not inspire that public confidence, and he should have inhibited himself.
2. On Jurisdiction and Authority: The Court held that respondent judge, authorized by administrative orders to hold court in Lucena City “for the purpose of trying all kinds of cases,” had jurisdiction to take cognizance of Civil Case No. 4871. The administrative orders were valid exercises of authority under Section 56 of the Judiciary Act. The transfer of the case from Branch I to his sala, while irregular in procedure, did not deprive him of jurisdiction.
3. On the Contempt Citation: The Court ruled that respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in citing petitioner for direct contempt. The motion for disqualification, while containing improper and intemperate language, was not uttered in the presence of or so near the judge as to obstruct court proceedings. It was a written pleading filed with the court. The proper remedy was not a summary contempt proceeding but an action for indirect contempt or disciplinary proceedings. The contempt order and the fine were declared null and void.
4. On the Order of Detention: The Court found the verbal order to detain petitioner for two hours to be a patent abuse of judicial power, as the contempt order was void and petitioner had not yet received a copy of it to exercise his right to move for reconsideration.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Supreme Court (1) declared the orders finding petitioner in contempt and imposing a fine null and void; (2) ordered respondent judge to refrain from taking cognizance of Civil Case No. 4871; (3) made the preliminary injunction permanent; (4) directed respondent judge to return the case to Branch I; (5) admonished petitioner for his use of improper language with a warning; and (6) directed that a copy of the decision be attached to his record as a member of the Bar. No costs.