Case Digest (G.R. No. 112684)
Facts:
Rodolfo E. Parayno, Clemartin B. Arboleda, Eduardo R. Perez, Casimiro C. Carancho, Diosdado T. Samson, Maximo G. Sumera and Marcelino M. Dela Cruz v. Hon. Iluminado Meneses, Lorenzo M. Mateo, Arturo Estrada, Norma Lustina and Pablo Mercado, G.R. No. 112684. April 26, 1994, Supreme Court Third Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rodolfo Parayno was the incumbent mayor of Urdaneta, Pangasinan; the other petitioners were members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Urdaneta and were protestees in separate election protests then pending before the regional trial court. The petition sought to set aside two orders of respondent Judge Iluminado Meneses (Branch 49, Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta) dated 22 October 1993 and 16 November 1993 in which the judge voluntarily inhibited himself from further hearing the election protests and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of that inhibition.
The mayoralty protest (Case No. U-5346, involving Parayno) was originally raffled to Branch 45 (Judge Manuel Villanueva). The councilors’ protest (Case No. U-5347, involving the other petitioners) was assigned to Branch 49 (Judge Meneses). On 22 October 1992 Parayno filed a motion to inhibit Judge Villanueva, which was granted; Executive Judge Romulo Abasolo thereafter attempted by order dated 26 October 1992 to assign Case No. U-5346 to Branch 46 (Judge Roger Domagas) only after Domagas agreed to hear it. Parayno challenged that assignment before the Court; the Supreme Court issued a TRO and remanded the matter to the Court of Appeals, which set aside the Executive Judge’s 26 October 1992 order and directed that the case be included in the regular raffle.
On re-raffle, the mayoralty protest landed in Branch 49, where the councilors’ protest was pending. The Committee on Revision for the mayoralty protest finished its work on 7 October 1993 but before submission of its report, protestant Lorenzo Mateo filed a “Motion to Use Revision Committee Report Blank Form.” On 21 October 1993, during the revision of ballots in Case No. U-5347, Mateo (as Revisor for the protestants-councilors) manifested on the record that because the presiding judge of Branch 49 was also the trial judge of Case No. U-5346 “there seems to be a certain degree of greater sympathy of the Trial Presiding Judge to the Protestee.” The next day (22 October 1993) Judge Meneses issued the order inhibiting himself from further hearing the two cases; he later denied a motion for reconsideration (16 November 1993).
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Was respondent Judge Meneses’ voluntary inhibition from hearing the election protests legally proper?
- Should the Supreme Court set aside the inhibition orders and direct the judge to resume and proceed with the elec...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)