G.R. No. 148273 - Simon vs. Canlas

Judge Eddie R. Rojas, who was previously involved as a public prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 09-5668 (People of the Philippines v. Rosalina Tauro, et al.), issued an order of inhibition on April 13, 1998, when he recognized his prior role in the case.
The case was initially tried at the RTC, Branch 39, Polomolok, South Cotabato, with Judge Rojas acting in the capacity of public prosecutor.
Despite his prior involvement, the original counsel for the accused did not raise any objection to his continued participation as the presiding judge when he assumed judicial office on November 12, 1996.

During the proceedings, after the defense sought a postponement for the presentation of evidence through new counsel Atty. Yolanda Ogena of the PAO, Judge Rojas was confronted with questions about his ability to remain impartial given his earlier prosecutorial role.
After a thorough review of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN)—which had been delayed due to administrative oversight—Judge Rojas discovered and acknowledged his previous participation as public prosecutor in the very same case.
He attempted to justify his continued involvement by claiming that no “full-blown trial” was conducted since his appointment as presiding judge, despite having already issued various orders, including resetting hearing dates, which amounted to sitting in judgment of the case.

On July 7, 1998, the Court requested Judge Rojas to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for acting as a judge in a case where he had previously served as counsel.
In his letter dated July 28, 1998, Judge Rojas reiterated the circumstances, noting administrative lapses (i.e., delayed transmission of the TSN) and the absence of a full trial as part of his defense.
Notwithstanding his letter-explanation, his prior role was clearly documented in the case’s records, including the appearances of counsels, which should have alerted him to the inherent conflict of interest.

Rule 137, A1 of the Rules of Court explicitly prohibits any judge or judicial officer from sitting in a case in which he has acted as counsel without securing the written consent of all parties involved.
Judge Rojas’ failure to secure such written consent, combined with his continued judicial actions (e.g., issuing orders, resetting hearing dates), constituted a clear breach of both the letter and the spirit of the rule.
The acts committed by Judge Rojas compromised not only the integrity of the judicial process but also the public’s perception of impartiality in the administration of justice.

Whether Judge Rojas violated Rule 137, A1 by sitting in Criminal Case No. 09-5668 in which he had previously acted as public prosecutor, without obtaining the written consent of all parties involved.
Whether the judge’s argument that no “full-blown trial” was conducted could serve as a valid justification for not inhibiting himself from a case that he had a prior involvement in.
Whether Judge Rojas’ actions, which included issuing orders and resetting hearing dates, amounted to an impermissible participation in the case, thereby creating a conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety.