Facts:

• Adelpha E. Malabed filed a complaint against Judge Enrique C. Asis of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16 in Naval, Biliran.
• Malabed accused Judge Asis of bias and partiality in two civil cases.
• Malabed alleged that Judge Asis favored the opposing party's counsel, Atty. Meljohn de la Peña, who had previously represented Judge Asis in administrative complaints.
• The first civil case involved a complaint for ejectment and damages filed by Malabed against spouses Ruben and Delia Cericos.
• The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled in favor of Malabed, but the Cericos appealed to the RTC where Judge Asis presided.
• Judge Asis affirmed the MCTC decision, but the Cericos filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
• Judge Asis granted the Cericos' petition for relief from judgment, stating that Malabed failed to disclose a verbal agreement between her family and the Cericos allowing them to build a house on the disputed land.
• The Court of Appeals later annulled Judge Asis' orders, finding that the petition for relief was filed out of time and that the alleged verbal agreement was a matter of defense that should have been presented earlier.
• The second civil case involved a case for recovery of possession filed by Malabed's sister, Perla Haverly, against certain individuals.
• The MCTC ruled in favor of Haverly, but the defendants appealed to the RTC where Judge Asis presided.
• Judge Asis reversed the MCTC decision, prompting Malabed to claim that he did so because Atty. de la Peña represented the defendants.
• The Investigating Justice found that Malabed did not move for Judge Asis' inhibition and that the case was still subject to appeal.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• Judge Asis should be fined in the amount of...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Court found that Judge Asis exhibited bias and partiality in the two civil cases.
• The Court emphasized that judges should administer justice impartially and without delay, and that their conduct must be beyond reproach.
• Judge Asis' previous disciplinary record and the frequency of administrative complaints filed against him were considered in determining the appropriate penalty.
• The Court also took into account ...continue reading