PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

(Jurisprudence on Inhibition of Judges)

February 7, 2018

Case Title

1. A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC October 26, 1987

QUERY OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA, REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT OF MAIOLOS, BULACAN, ON TIHE CONFLICTING VIEWS OF
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT — JUDGES MASADAO and ELIZAGA RE: CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 4954-M

2. A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823 August 28, 2006

ARCELY Y. SANTOS, Complainant,

vs.
JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Cabanatuan City, Branch 29 and Pairing Judge, Branch 30, Respondent.

1
1. A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC October 26, 1987
QUERY OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MAIOLOS, BULACAN, ON THE CONFLICTING VIEWS OF REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT — JUDGES MASADAO and ELIZAGA RE: CRIMINAL CASE NO.
4954-M

FACTS:
Judge Roy A. Masadao, Jr., rendered a decision in a criminal case finding the
accused guilty of the crime of estafa. The counsel then for the accused, Atty. Efren C.
Moncupa, filed a motion for reconsideration which was submitted without arguments.
Later, retired Justice J. B. L. Reyes entered his appearance for the accused,
wherefore, Judge Masadao issued an order inhibiting himself from further sitting in the
case on the ground that retired Justice J. B. L. Reyes had been among those who had
recommended him to the Bench. Judge Masadao directed that the case be transmitted
to Executive Judge Estrena T. Estrada for re-raffling among the other branches of the
court for further proceedings.
A raffle was then conducted and the case was assigned to Judge Luciano G.
Elizaga. The latter however returned the records of the case with an accompanying
letter stating a refusal to act on the aforesaid motion for reconsideration and assailing
the re-raffling of the case as impractical and uncalled for.
Judge Masadao, on the other hand, replied by way of a second Indorsement
justifying his decision and standing pat on his order of inhibition, unless and until
overruled by judicial authorities of higher rank. Wherefore, Executive Judge Estrada
certified the matter to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the inhibition of Judge Masadao was justified.

HELD:
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court embodies the rule on
disqualification and inhibition of judges.
It is clear from a reading of the law that intimacy or friendship between a judge
and an attorney of record of one of the parties to a suit is no ground for
disqualification. The SC held that inhibition is not allowed at every instance that a
friend, classmate, associate or patron of a presiding judge appears before him as
counsel for one of the parties to a case. "Utang na loob", per se, should not be a
hindrance to the administration of justice. Nor should recognition of such value in
Philippine society prevent the performance of one's duties as judge. However, where,
as in this case, the judge admits that he may be suspected of surrendering to the
persuasions of utang na loob or he may even succumb to it considering that he "and
the members of his family, no less, shall ever remain obliged in eternal gratitude to
Justice Reyes", the negative answer to the question of judge Elizaga yields to
exceptions in extraordinary cases.
SC further held that a judge's decision to refuse to act on account of some
disqualification is not conclusive, and his competency may be determined on an
application for mandamus to compel him to act, However, as much as possible, the
judge to whom a case is transferred should not resist too much the order of recusation
unless the motives for inhibition are suspect.
Here, Judge Masadao's actuations are within the terms of Paragraph 2, Section
1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court. The records do not indicate any improper
exercise of a prerogative conferred on him by law. And, absent any abuse of discretion
or manifest error, we hesitate to reverse his decision holding himself disqualified. Nor
will the wisdom of such inhibition be delved into where the reasons therefor are
concededly subjective. We also suggest that judges of equal standing should be reticent
in passing judgment upon a matter of discretion and in refusing to act on cases referred
to them on account of such discretion.

2
2. A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823 August 28, 2006
ARCELY Y. SANTOS, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Cabanatuan City, Branch 29 and Pairing Judge, Branch 30, Respondent.

FACTS:
The complaint stemmed from respondent judge’s alleged bias and partiality in
favor of one Rogelio R. Santos, Sr. ("Santos"), who had three pending cases before
respondent judge’s sala. Here, respondent judge allowed Santos, a non-lawyer, to
appear in court and litigate personally the three cases wherein the complainant pointed
out that the former was already represented by counsels who have not withdrawn their
appearances. Complainant alleged that respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct
and grave abuse of judicial discretion for having allowed a non-lawyer to engage in the
practice law. The complainant further alleged that the respondent judge granted with
dispatch all the pleadings of Santos and that he was responsible for the delay in the
execution of the CAs’ decision. The complainant also pointed out that in an earlier case,
respondent judge inhibited himself because Santos is respondent judge’s "close friend."
On respondent judge’s inhibition in the earlier case, respondent judge explained
that he inhibited himself from the case because Santos was his "close friend," while
respondents were not respondent judge’s friends. In these cases, respondent judge
pointed out that he was friends with both Santos and the other parties to the cases, in
effect, "neutralizing" respondent judge’s close friendship with Santos. Respondent judge
also stated that if complainant filed the proper motion for inhibition, he would have
granted the same.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the respondent judge is disqualified from deciding the cases; and
2. Whether or not the respondent judge’s close friendship with Santos a valid ground to
inhibit himself from deciding the three cases.

HELD:
Procedure for disqualification of judges in Section 2, Rule 137 must be
substantially followed.
The three cases do not fall under the instances covered by the rule on the
mandatory disqualification of judges and the issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a
matter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge.
Besides, complainant did not follow the proper procedure for the disqualification
of judges. In Constante v. Pimentel, the Court ruled that the procedure for
disqualification of judges in Section 2, Rule 137 must be substantially followed.
On respondent judge’s close friendship with Santos, such fact did not render
respondent judge guilty of violating any canon of judicial ethics as long as his friendly
relations with Santos did not influence his official conduct as a judge in the cases where
Santos was a party. Complainant failed to present any convincing proof that respondent
judge gave any undue privileges in his court to Santos, or that Santos benefited from
his personal relations with respondent judge, or that respondent judge used his
influence, if any, to favor Santos.
However, it would have been more prudent if respondent judge avoided hearing
the cases where Santos was a party because their close friendship could reasonably
tend to raise suspicion that respondent judge’s social relationship with Santos would be
an element in his determination of the cases of Santos. This may erode the trust of the
litigants in respondent judge’s impartiality and eventually, undermine the people’s faith
in the administration of justice. Judges must not only render a just, correct and
impartial decision but should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion
as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity.
Wherefore, the Court finds respondent Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom GUILTY of
simple misconduct.