Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44712)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Honorable Leonardo L. Serrano and Federico P. Legaspe, G.R. No. L-44712, October 28, 1991, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On 14 May 1976 a criminal complaint for grave coercion against Federico Legaspe (then Administrative Officer, Agusan del Sur Provincial Hospital) was filed with the Municipal Court of Prosperidad and docketed as Criminal Case No. 1127. On 10 June 1976 two complaints for estafa through falsification of public documents were filed against Dra. Paz A. Busa (one of the complainants in No. 1127) and docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 1134 and 1135. On 1 July 1976 another complaint for estafa through falsification (daily time record) was filed by Dra. Busa against Legaspe as Criminal Case No. 1148.
Respondent Judge Serrano conducted preliminary investigations in Criminal Cases Nos. 1134, 1135 and 1148 and, on 19 August 1976, issued a Resolution that (a) mentioned Criminal Case No. 1127 "for information of its pendency," (b) characterized the matters as charges and countercharges among hospital personnel, (c) ruled that acts in Nos. 1134 and 1135 were more properly under the Anti-Graft law and indorsed them to the Provincial Fiscal, and (d) dismissed Criminal Case No. 1148 as "a superfluity" and harassment, citing Civil Service procedure as the proper avenue.
Dra. Busa moved for clarification/reconsideration. On 20 September 1976 her counsel filed a Motion for Disqualification of Judge Serrano in Criminal Case No. 1127, asserting that the 19 August 1976 Resolution showed prejudgment and partiality by linking No. 1127 with the other cases. The motion was heard and denied by respondent judge in open court on 24 September 1976; the denial was reduced to writing the same day.
The prosecution (Provincial Fiscal Antonio Apale and private prosecutors Galicia and Go) filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court on 5 October 1976 to set aside the judge's denial of disqualification and to abate further proceedings in No. 1127. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on 6 October 1976 enjoining further proceedings and required answers. Respondent judge filed comments claiming his phrase "superfluity as much as a harassment" referred to No. 1148, not No. 1127, and later moved to dissolve the TRO on grounds that complainants executed affidavits of desistance and a police officer filed a motion to dismiss.
The Office of the Solicitor General opposed disso...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court, by certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, review and set aside a trial judge’s denial of a motion to disqualify when the denial arguably casts doubt on the judge’s impartiality?
- Did respondent Judge Serrano’s acts and statements constitute just and valid reasons to disqualify him under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court?
- Does Section 2, Rule 137 (no appeal or stay from a judge’s decision on his competency until final judgment) bar interlocutory review when the motion for disqualification i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)