Case Digest (G.R. No. L-69640-45)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-69640-45)
Facts:
Miguel P. Paderanga, as City Mayor of Gingoog City, petitioner, vs. Hon. Judge Cesar R. Azura, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVI, 10th Judicial Region, Medina, Misamis Oriental, respondent, G.R. No. 69640-45. April 30, 1985, First Division, Melencio‑Herrera, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner, the City Mayor of Gingoog City, filed a Motion for Inhibition seeking to prevent Hon. Judge Cesar R. Azura from hearing, deciding or issuing orders in seven pending cases in Branch XXVI in which the City of Gingoog and its officials (including petitioner) were parties. The seven cases included several special civil and civil actions involving tax-auction matters, salary claims, and other disputes affecting the City's interests.
Petitioner grounded the inhibition on four main contentions: (1) loss of trust and confidence in the judge’s competence and impartiality, especially in view of administrative complaints filed by petitioner and others against the judge; (2) the judge’s issuance of restraining orders in suits attacking tax-auction sales contrary to the remedy prescribed in P.D. 464; (3) bias and oppressive exercise of contempt power — exemplified by ordering the arrest of petitioner and members of the Sangguniang Panglunsod, imposing a P10,000 fine and P50,000 bond where the salary claim was only P5,000, and arranging a sensational arrest with the Provincial Commander; and (4) issuance of various orders adverse to the City’s interests.
Respondent judge denied the Motion for Inhibition, finding petitioner’s claimed loss of confidence unfounded and attributing the motion in part to the conduct of the City Attorney (petitioner’s counsel), whom he considered to have committed contempt. Respondent explained he applied Section 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court, and suggested that challenges to his jurisdiction should be addressed by prohibition under Rule 65. Several of the underlying cases had, he asserted, already produced final decisions.
Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari (seeking annulment of the denial of inhibition) before the Supreme Court. In resolving the matter the Court considered governing guidelines on recusal from Pimentel v. Salanga, L‑27934, 21 SCRA 160 (1967) and, balancing the circumstances asserted, ordered respondent judge to inhibit himself from the cases specified in paragraph 4 of the petition and transferred venue of those cases to Cagayan de Oro City for raffle assignment to the Regional Trial Courts thereat.
Issues:
- Did respondent judge commit error or grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion for Inhibition?
- Should the cases involving the City of Gingoog and its officials be transferred to another venue and assigned by raffle?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)