G.R. No. 124760 - Gutang vs. Court of Appeals

The dispute arose from actions taken in Civil Case No. R-82-5792 where private respondents Alberto Looyuko and Juan Uy had motions granted by Judge Marino M. de la Cruz, Jr. on August 30, 1994.
The motions included:

The issuance of a final deed of sale, with the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 242 and the issuance of a new title in the name of the plaintiffs.
The issuance of a writ of possession over the subject property, carrying over the encumbrances from the cancelled title.

Petitioner Antonia J. Gutang questioned the orders issued by Judge de la Cruz, Jr., particularly focusing on:

The voluntary inhibition of the judge despite his ruling that the motion for inhibition was without legal or factual basis.
The denial of the motion for reconsideration of his own inhibition order.

Annulment of the orders dated July 26, 1995 and September 5, 1995 concerning the judge’s voluntary inhibition.
An order enjoining Judge Ramon P. Makasiar (to whom the case was re-raffled) from further acting in the case.
Mandamus compelling Judge de la Cruz, Jr. to resume jurisdiction over the case.

After the initial writ of possession was issued in August 1994, matters continued with:

The filing of a motion for alias writ of possession on May 17, 1995, prompted by the death of the sheriff who served the initial writ.
On June 7, 1995, private respondents filed a motion seeking to inhibit Judge de la Cruz, Jr. due to his alleged delay in acting on the alias writ motion.

On July 26, 1995, he issued an order denying the motion to inhibit while simultaneously voluntarily inhibiting himself from the case.
Following his inhibition, the case was re-raffled to Branch 35, now presided over by Judge Ramon P. Makasiar.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration of the inhibition order was denied.

Petitioners filed a petition before the Court of Appeals for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a prayer for a temporary restraining order.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on April 22, 1996, upholding the voluntary inhibition and proper reassigning of the case.

The voluntary inhibition by Judge de la Cruz, Jr. lacked both legal and factual basis.
Denial of the motion for inhibition and his subsequent voluntary inhibition amounted to a grave abuse of discretion and a lack of jurisdiction.
The decisions of the lower courts, including the reassignment of the case to Judge Makasiar, were tainted by reversible errors of law.

Whether Judge de la Cruz, Jr.’s voluntary inhibition was justified or whether it lacked a sound legal and factual basis.
Whether the voluntary inhibition and the subsequent denial of the motion for inhibition constitute a grave abuse of discretion and amount to a jurisdictional error.
Whether mandamus can compel Judge de la Cruz, Jr. to proceed with hearing the case despite his voluntary inhibition.
Whether the re-raffling of the case to Judge Ramon P. Makasiar, and his subsequent handling of the case, should be enjoined or annulled on legal grounds.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible errors of law in dismissing the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.