Facts:

The administrative case under consideration involves Sofia P. Balleza as the complainant and Municipal Judge Jose R. Astorga of Ajuy, Iloilo as the respondent. The matter was filed on April 30, 1976, following a series of events stemming from a criminal complaint for frustrated homicide, which was instigated against two sons of Balleza by Roberto Astorga, the uncle of Judge Astorga. This complaint arose from a fistfight involving the complainant's sons. Balleza alleged grave partiality in favor of her uncle, oppression and persecution against her sons, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice on the part of Judge Astorga.

The case was referred to Executive Judge Sancho Y. Inserto for investigation, with hearings beginning on February 20, 1975. During the proceedings, Balleza submitted a Motion for Withdrawal and/or Dismissal on February 7, 1975, expressing her realization that Judge Astorga had no involvement in the filing of the criminal case against her son

...

Facts:

Background of the Administrative Complaint

• Sofia P. Balleza, the complainant, initiated an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Jose R. Astorga of Ajuy, Iloilo.
• The complaint was based on several allegations including grave partiality, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
• The core of the complaint was anchored on the alleged conflict of interest, specifically the relationship of the respondent with his uncle, Roberto Astorga, who was involved as a party in a criminal complaint.

Details of the Allegations

• Count I: Accusation of grave partiality
• The complaint alleged that Judge Astorga showed partiality in favor of his uncle Roberto Astorga, who had filed a criminal complaint for frustrated homicide against the complainant’s two sons.
• The contentious incident stemmed from a fight involving the complainant and her sons with the party represented by the judge’s uncle.
• Count II: Charge of oppression and persecution
• The complaint further charged that the judge oppressed and persecuted Sofia P. Balleza’s sons, Rosendo Balleza and Paulino Balleza, Jr.
• Count III: Conduct prejudicial to the service and administration of justice
• It was alleged that the judge’s conduct was detrimental to the integrity of the judicial process and the best interests of the service.

Proceedings and Evidentiary Developments

• The charges were referred to Executive Judge Sancho Y. Inserto for investigation.
• A hearing was scheduled on February 20, 1975, during which the allegations were scrutinized through the presentation and review of evidence.
• Presentation of the Motion for Withdrawal and/or Dismissal
• The complainant submitted a Motion for Withdrawal and/or Dismissal dated February 7, 1975, acknowledging a misinterpretation of certain events and clarifying the context of her earlier allegations.
• The motion detailed her realization that:
• The respondent judge had no role in the intervention in the criminal case against her sons.

ii. Any perceived oppression or prejudice was either a misunderstanding of his advice or circumstantial.

Noteworthy Legal Considerations

• Rule 137 of the Rules of Court mandates the disqualification of a judge or judicial officer in cases where there exists any pecuniary or familial interest that might compromise impartiality.
• Specifically, the rule bars a judge from presiding in cases where he is related to any party within the sixth degree of consanguinity.
• Although the complainant retracted or moderated her allegations through her motion, the matter of the respondent’s failure to voluntarily recuse himself—given the potential conflict of interest arising from his familial connection—remained significant in the context of strict adherence to judicial ethics and impartiality.

Issue:

Whether the respondent’s failure to disqualify himself, in light of his familial relationship with one of the litigating parties, violated the requirements of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.

• Specifically, whether having an uncle (presumably within the prohibited degree of kinship) involved in the litigation constituted an appearance or likelihood of bias warranting recusal.

Whether the administrative case should be dismissed given:

• The lack of conclusive evidence against the respondent.
• The withdraw/dismissal motion by the complainant which acknowledged that the allegations were difficult to substantiate.

• Whether, notwithstanding the dismissal of the case, a cautionary directive ought to be issued to the respondent to avoid any future appearance of partiality that could undermine public confidence in the judicial administration.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)