This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-12-10 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In 1964, this Court, in People v. Gomez[6] and Mateo, Jr. v. Villaluz,[7] held that a judge may voluntarily inhibit himself on grounds other than those mentioned in paragraph 1, Section 1, Rule 137 and these grounds include bias and partiality. In Pimentel v. Salonga,[8] the Court laid the following guideposts for voluntary inhibition of judges:A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation. But when suggestion is made of record that he might be induced to act in favor of one party or with bias or prejudice against a litigant arising out of circumstance reasonably capable of inciting such a state of mind, he should conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the people's faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. A salutary norm is that he reflects on the probability that a losing party might nurture at the back of his mind the thought that the judge had unmeritoriously tilted the scales of justice against him. In a long line of cases,[9] this Court has unceasingly re-affirmed the standards laid down in Pimentel. | |||||