G.R. No. 117964 - Urbanes, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

A petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was filed by the People of the Philippines. The petition challenged an order of 24 September 1976 issued by Municipal Judge Leonardo L. Serrano denying the prosecution’s motion to disqualify him from trying Criminal Case No. 1127.
The petition was additionally supported by a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and was signed by then Provincial Fiscal Antonio Embang Apale and private prosecutors Attorneys Vicente Galicia and Dollfuss R. Go.

On 14 May 1976, a criminal complaint for grave coercion was filed against Federico Legaspe, then Administrative Officer of Agusan del Sur Provincial Hospital, in Criminal Case No. 1127.
On 10 June 1976, two separate complaints for acts of estafa through falsification of public documents (involving the hospital’s Time Book and Payrolls Nos. 251 and 457) were filed against Dra. Paz A. Busa, Chief of the hospital, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 1134 and 1135.
On 1 July 1976, another complaint—Criminal Case No. 1148—was filed against Legaspe for estafa through falsification of a daily time record, alleging that he concealed his absence on 25–26 September to collect an unwarranted full-month salary.

The three complaints for estafa underwent preliminary investigation before the respondent judge.
On 19 August 1976, while Criminal Case No. 1127 was pending trial, Judge Serrano issued a Resolution covering all four cases.

He mentioned Criminal Case No. 1127 “for information of its pendency,” linking it with the preliminary cases.
The Resolution included statements suggesting an “intramural wrangling” among hospital personnel.
While charging certain acts in Criminal Cases Nos. 1134 and 1135 under provisions of the Anti-Graft and Practices Act, he dismissed Criminal Case No. 1148 by reasoning that falsification of a public document should first be addressed administratively and that its filing appeared superfluous and harassing.

On 17 September 1976, Dra. Busa, through counsel, filed a Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration of the Resolution, objecting to baseless and extraneous statements and the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 1148.

On 20 September 1976, Attorney Galicia, acting as private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 1127, filed a Motion for Disqualification of the respondent judge.

The motion was grounded on the allegation of partiality and prejudgment arising from the inclusion of Criminal Case No. 1127 in the Resolution, which was primarily focused on Criminal Case No. 1148.
The motion highlighted that such linkage cast doubts on the judge’s ability to render an impartial judgment.

The Motion for Disqualification was heard on 24 July 1976 during the trial, and the respondent judge denied it in open court; the denial was reduced into writing on the same day.
The prosecution, unsatisfied with the ruling, petitioned the Supreme Court on 5 October 1976 seeking certiorari and prohibition.
While the case progressed, the respondent judge filed various pleadings, including a Comment on 28 October 1976 and a Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order (filed on 16 February 1977).
The Office of the Solicitor General vigorously opposed these motions, emphasizing that allowing the judge to continue presiding would prejudice the interest of the State and undermine impartial justice.
Eventually, the Supreme Court resolved, after a series of submissions and compliance documents, to deny the motion to dissolve the restraining order and proceed with reviewing the case on the grounds of judicial partiality.

The Supreme Court considered the merits of the petition, particularly the controversy over whether the judge’s act of merging unrelated cases and prejudging the outcome of Criminal Case No. 1127 violated the constitutional guarantee to due process.
The Court reviewed extensive precedents concerning judicial disqualification, partiality, and the appearance of impartiality.
Based on its findings, the Court granted the petition, disqualifying the respondent judge from adjudicating Criminal Case No. 1127 and setting aside his 24 September 1976 order.

Whether a judge, who has not been disqualified under mandatory grounds but has exhibited behavior suggesting partiality and prejudgment, may be compelled to disqualify himself.
Whether the respondent judge’s inclusion of Criminal Case No. 1127 in his Resolution—thereby linking it with unrelated preliminary cases—constitutes a clear demonstration of bias or prejudgment.
Whether the procedural handling by the lower court, including the denial of the prosecution’s motion for disqualification, was proper in light of the due process rights of the offended parties.
Whether the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order and subsequent motions affecting the progress of the case were justified and in the interests of justice given the perceived partiality of the judge.