A.M. No. RTJ-07-2031 - Malabed vs. Asis

Complainant Adelpha E. Malabed filed a verified complaint against Judge Enrique C. Asis for alleged bias and partiality in Civil Case No. B-1016.
The dispute arose from a parcel of land acquired by Malabed from her brother, Conrado Estreller, which the spouses Ruben and Delia Cericos began to occupy without her consent.
Malabed attempted to resolve the issue amicably but ultimately filed for ejectment and damages in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), which ruled in her favor.
The Cericos appealed the MCTC's decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), where Judge Asis presided.

On January 25, 1999, Judge Asis affirmed the MCTC's decision favoring Malabed.
The Cericos filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by Judge Asis.
Following the denial, a Writ of Execution was issued, leading to the Cericos being evicted from the property.
The Cericos subsequently filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, which Judge Asis granted, citing a failure by Malabed to disclose a material fact regarding a prior agreement.

Malabed alleged that Judge Asis exhibited bias in favor of the Cericos due to their counsel, Atty. Meljohn de la Peña, having previously represented him in administrative complaints.
She also claimed that Judge Asis reversed a decision in a separate case involving her sister, which was similarly influenced by Atty. de la Peña's representation of the opposing party.

Judge Asis denied any bias, asserting that Atty. de la Peña's representation in his administrative case occurred after the relevant decisions in Malabed's case.
He contended that he acted impartially and based his decisions on the evidence presented in court.

The OCA found that mere suspicion of bias is insufficient; clear evidence is required to substantiate claims of partiality.
The OCA noted that Malabed failed to provide adequate evidence to support her allegations against Judge Asis.

The Court of Appeals annulled Judge Asis's orders granting the Cericos' Petition for Relief, stating it was filed out of time.
The appellate court emphasized that the petition for relief was not based on extrinsic fraud, which is necessary for such a petition.

The evaluation highlighted that a judge must exhibit clear acts of bias for a complaint to be substantiated.
The OCA concluded that Malabed's claims of bias were not supported by sufficient evidence, and the judge's actions did not demonstrate partiality.