Are the rulings of a judge supposedly erroneous and allegedly adverse to a party sufficient proof of bias and prejudice on his part? This is one of the questions answered in this case of a Regional Trial Court Judge (Judge MM).
On November 16, 2007, Judge MM who was assigned in the RTC of Iligan City was designated by the Supreme Court (SC) also as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC (Branch 10) in Marawi City. He was actually the fourth judge designated as Acting Presiding Judge in the said RTC branch after its incumbent Judge died.
Pending in said RTC was a criminal case for murder filed way back on September 5, 2001 against Abas and Salih for the killing of Tillah (not their true names). Later on Judge MM suffered a mild stroke, hence the SC revoked his earlier designation as Acting Presiding Judge and designated Judge LB as the new Acting Presiding Judge in a resolution dated December 26, 2007.
On December 28, 2007, before he received notice of the designation of Judge LB and before the latter had assumed office, Judge MM issued a decision in the said criminal case finding both accused Abas and Salih guilty of murder and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua upon them. He also increased both accused’s bail bond from P75,000 to P200,000.
On February 1, 2008, after he already received notice of the designation of Judge LB but before the latter had assumed office, Judge MM issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration of his decision filed by the accused on January 21, 2008. In another order of the same date, Judge MM applied the same increased bail bond only on Abas. However, again on the same date, he recalled the aforesaid orders.
Thus on May 14, 2008, Lani, the wife of Salih filed an administrative complaint against Judge MM. She alleged that Judge MM displayed bias and prejudice against her husband when he did not inhibit himself from the case, considering that he is a relative by consanguinity or affinity of the victim Tillah and he also came from the same town where Tillah used to reside. She also pointed out that despite the designation of Judge LB on December 26, 2008 Judge MM still rendered the decision on December 28, 2008 and issued the two orders of February 1, 2008. Was Judge MM guilty of bias and prejudice by not inhibiting himself from the case?
No. Lani failed to specify in her complaint the degree of relationship of Judge MM to the victim Tillah. She failed to present any clear and convincing evidence that Judge MM or his wife or child is related to Tillah within the sixth degree of consanguinity so as to disqualify him from hearing the case pursuant to Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. So inhibition was indeed discretionary or voluntary on the part of Judge MM. When he chose not to inhibit and proceed with the promulgation of the disputed decision, he cannot be faulted especially because complainant Lani failed to file any motion for inhibition.
Moreover, the alleged erroneous and adverse rulings of Judge MM do not sufficiently prove bias and prejudice. To be disqualifying, the bias and prejudice must be shown to stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion based not on what the judge learned from his participation in the case. Opinions formed in the course of the judicial proceedings, although erroneous do not prove personal bias or prejudice, as long as they are based on the evidence presented and conduct observed by the judge. Repeated rulings against a litigant, no matter how erroneous and vigorously and consistently expressed, are not enough to show bias and prejudice without any extrinsic evidence establishing such bias, bad faith malice or corrupt purpose in addition to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order. Not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties render s him liable unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice.
Judge MM’s issuance of the decision on December 28, 2007 was done in good faith since he received a notice of his replacement dated December 26, 2007 only on January 26, 2008.
But Judge MM was also fined P20,000 for gross ignorance of law by just increasing the bail of the accused instead of cancelling it because they have already been sentenced to reclusion perpetua which is a non-bailable offense under Rule 114, Section 5 (Dipatuan vs. Mangotara, A.M. P-07-2322, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA, 42).
* * *
E-mail at:jcson@pldtdsl.net