Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47737)
Facts:
Haniel R. Castro v. Honorable Juan Y. Reyes and San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. L-47737, May 27, 1981, Supreme Court Second Division, Fernando, C.J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Haniel R. Castro was a defendant in Civil Case No. R-15621 pending before respondent Hon. Juan Y. Reyes, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Cebu, 14th Judicial District, Branch I, the plaintiff being San Miguel Corporation. The complaint sought recovery of a sum of money and damages arising from the sinking of a common carrier and loss of cargo; petitioner was sued as a co-owner/operator.
Petitioner filed an ex parte motion asking that the civil case be re-raffled for assignment to another branch. He grounded that request on an earlier event in an unrelated criminal prosecution: in Criminal Case No. 1818 for estafa, which had likewise been assigned to Branch I, petitioner (then an accused) filed a motion for the presiding judge’s inhibition on July 12, 1977; that motion had been granted on July 21, 1977. Petitioner asserted that, because the judge previously acceded to an inhibition motion in the criminal case, he honestly felt the judge could not be impartial in the civil action and therefore sought re-raffling.
Respondent Judge denied the motion to re-raffle; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court, contending that the judge’s earlier conduct established reasonable apprehension of bias and/or grave abuse of discretion warranting relief.
The Court required respondents to comment. Counsel for San Miguel Corporation submitted comments attaching the order in the criminal case in which the trial judge had voluntarily recused himself; that order explained the judge’s apprehension as reflecting his view on a legal doctrine regarding estafa and his desir...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the respondent judge’s earlier voluntary inhibition in the unrelated criminal prosecution justifies his inhibition or re-raffling in the present civil case.
- Whether petitioner proved that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction so as to warrant the issuance of a writ of prohibition...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)