Case no. 27 G.R. No. 88105 December 18, 1989 NICOLAS FECUNDO vs. HON.

RAMON BERJAMEN and JULIUS SALCEDO Canon 3 Sec. 4

further averred that said petition is only a scheme to delay the disposition of the election case in violation of the Election Law, which respondent judge is seeking to uphold. He disclaimed any utang na loob to Congressman Villareal.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated Section 4, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct Facts: A petition for certiorari with prayer for a restraining order seeking to inhibit respondent judge, of the RTC Br. 20, Mambusao, Capiz from continuing with the trial of an election protest filed by private respondent Salcedo against petitioner, for alleged partiality and bias against petitioner. a) Use of unbecoming language stating therein, "that the implementation of the order of this Court is being vehemently opposed by the municipal mayor (herein petitioner) and his cohorts. Ours is a government of laws and not a government of rascals. To give in to this kind of behavior of the respondent and his cohorts, we are just like savages in the jungle where might is might. b) Severely reprimanding and scolding in open court petitioner's secretary when the latter filed on behalf of the petitioner a motion to dismiss the election protest, then angrily adding that non-lawyers/ couriers are not entertained by the court, thereby subjecting the petitioner's representative to the mockery and ridicule of private respondent's supporters. c) Personal interest of respondent judge shown by inquiring from Arcadio Hernandez (one of the commissioners in the revision of ballots) about the procedural maneuvers of petitioner's counsel. d) Respondent judge, beholden to Congressman Villareal whose life size (half body) picture is displayed in the former's office. Villareal is a known supporter of private respondent who engaged the services of the Villareal law office in the election protest before the respondent judge. Congressman Villareal allegedly had worked for Judge Benjamins appointment to the Bench. e) Statement of respondent judge in open court that a motion for reconsideration (of the denial of the motion to inhibit him) to be filed by petitioner will be denied. Petitioner's recourse is basically founded on the contention that public respondent's conduct is not in consonance with the standard of cold neutrality of an impartial judge, thus he cannot render a fair and impartial decision in the case. Respondent judge imputed them to petitioner's wild imagination, political immaturity and childish mentality. Such that, some words used in the order were merely taken from the letter of the municipal treasurer while the others were reminders and advice to petitioner to respect and recognize the authority of the court. He

Ruling:

While it is true that partiality and prejudgment may constitute a just or valid reason for the trial judge to voluntarily inhibit himself from hearing the case, it is not enough that the same be merely alleged. It is now settled that mere suspicion that a judge is partial to one of the parties to the case is not enough, there should be evidence to prove the charge. Second only to the duty of rendering a just decision, is the duty of doing it in a manner that will not arouse any suspicion as to its fairness and the integrity of the Judge. The true intention of the law is that no judge shall preside in a case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested impartial and independent because however upright the judge, and however free from the slightest inclination but to do justice, there is peril of his unconscious bias or prejudice, or lest any former opinion formed ex parte may still linger to affect unconsciously his present judgment, or lest he may be moved or swayed unconsciously by his knowledge of the facts which may not be revealed or stated at the trial, or cannot under the rules of evidence. While bias and prejudice are not to be presumed especially if weighed against a judge's sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to person, the Court has at the same time admonished judges to so conduct themselves and exercise their discretion in a way that the peoples' and litigants' all- important confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary' is ever nurtured and upheld. The petition was GRANTED.

Case No. 28 G.R. NO. 163155 : July 21, 2006 ALFREDO HILADO, MANUEL LACSON, JOSE MA. TUVILLA, JOAQUIN LIMJAP LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION vs. JUDGE AMOR A. REYES and ADMINISTRATRIX JULITA CAMPOS BENEDICTO Canon 3 Sec. 3

Facts : Julita Campos Benedicto, the surviving spouse of the deceased Roberto S. Benedicto, filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration which was raffled to Branch 21 RTC Manila, presided by respondent Judge Amor A. Reyes.Private respondent. She was appointed Administratrix and letters of administration were thereafter issued in her favor. Petitioners had, during the lifetime of Benedicto, filed two complaints for damages or collection of sums of money against Roberto Benedicto et al. While the case was pending, the Court allowed petitioners through counsel to regularly and periodically examine the records of the case and to secure certified true copies thereof. However until, an associate of petitioners' counsel, was denied access to the last folder-record of the case. Petitioners counsel filed a Motion for Inhibition of public respondent on the ground of gross ignorance, dereliction of duty, and manifest partiality towards the administratrix and eventually filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition to compel public respondent to allow them to access, examine, and obtain copies of any and all documents forming part of the records of the case and disqualify public respondent from further presiding over the case. As correctly pointed out, the motion was filed by persons/entities who have no legal standing in the case, hence they cannot ask anything from the Court. The public respondent did not allow movants to intervene in the proceedings of the case and ordered that copies of pleadings/orders issued relative to the case may only be secured from the administratrix.

In intestate proceedings, the heirs file pleadings and documents for the purpose of establishing their right to a share of the estate. As for the creditors, their purpose is to establish their claim to the estate and be paid therefor before the disposition of the estate. Thus, if the information sought then is not a matter of public concern or interest, denial of access thereto does not violate a citizens constitutional right to information. The court, as the custodian of exhibits, is bound to inquire into the use that is to be made of them. However, petitioners purpose for accessing the records appears legitimate considering they are plaintiffs for the case of sum of money filed against the estate of the deceased, thus making them interested persons. Meanwhile, Rule 137 Sec. 1 provides for the grounds governing disqualification of judges. Thus, a judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just and valid reasons. Since petitioners are not parties to the case, they may not seek public respondents inhibition.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Judicial Conduct

Ruling: