Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 143338 2005-08-29	CONSOLIDATED BANK v. DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In order for this Court to sustain a charge of partiality and prejudice brought against a judge, there must be convincing proof to show that he or she is, indeed, biased and partial. Bare allegations are not enough. Bias and prejudice are serious charges which cannot be presumed particularly if weighed against a judge's sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to person and do equal right to the poor and the rich.[38] There must be a showing of bias and prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source resulting in an opinion in the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.[39]
	GR No. 143338 2005-07-29	CONSOLIDATED BANK v. DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In order for this Court to sustain a charge of partiality and prejudice brought against a judge, there must be convincing proof to show that he or she is, indeed, biased and partial. Bare allegations are not enough. Bias and prejudice are serious charges which cannot be presumed particularly if weighed against a judge's sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to person and do equal right to the poor and the rich.[38] There must be a showing of bias and prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source resulting in an opinion in the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.[39]
	AM No. MTJ-02-1422 2003-11-21	NEGROS GRACE PHARMACY v. JUDGE ALFREDO P. HILARIO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
After a close review of the records, we find that complainant failed to substantiate his allegation that respondent judge acted with bias and partiality. At most, such allegation is a mere suspicion or conjecture. Mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough.[10] There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality.[11] Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed especially if weighed against a judge's sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to the person and do equal right to the poor and rich.[12] In People vs. Court of Appeals,[13] we held:"To disqualify a judge on the ground of bias and prejudice, the movant must prove the same by clear and convincing evidence. Mere allegation and perception of bias from the tenor and the language of a judge alone is insufficient to show prejudgment. Neither can the perception that the pleading of the parties have become personal and loaded with insulting innuendos be the basis for the inhibition. Allowing inhibition for these reasons would open the flood gates to forum shopping. Unless there is concrete proof that a judge has a personal interest in the case and his bias is shown to have stemmed from an extra-judicial source, this Court shall always commence from the presumption that a judge shall decide on the merits of a case with an unclouded vision of facts."
	GR No. 144618 2003-08-15	JORGE CHIN v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In the present case, we see no cogent reason for respondent judge to disqualify himself from the case, and we are constrained to rule that respondent Court of Appeals erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the resolution of Judge Magpale to voluntarily inhibit himself. An allegation of prejudgment, without more, constitutes mere conjecture and is not one of the "just and valid reasons" contemplated in the second paragraph of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court for which a judge may inhibit himself from hearing the case. We have repeatedly held that mere suspicion that a judge is partial to a party is not enough.[30] Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice[31] in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence and without fear or favor.[32] There should be adequate evidence to prove the allegations, and there must be showing that the judge had an interest, personal or otherwise, in the prosecution of the case. To be a disqualifying circumstance, the bias and prejudice must be shown to have stemmed from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.
	GR No. 128230 2000-10-13	ROCKWELL PERFECTO GOHU v. SPS. ALBERTO GOHU AND ADELAIDA GOHU YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In a string of cases decided by this Court, we said that while bias and prejudice, which are relied upon by petitioner, have been recognized as valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of the judge under Rule 137, Section 1(2), of the Rules of Court, the rudimentary rule is that mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice. Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed especially if weighed against a judge's sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to person and do equal right to the poor and the rich.[4]