Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Aparicio vs.

Andal FACTS: What are assailed here are the orders of the respondent judge in certain criminal and civil cases. What the petitioner wrote on his Motion for Inhibition is for the respective judge to inhibit himself from trying, hearing or any manner acting on all cases, civil and criminal, in which the Movant or the herein petition is involved and handling. However, considering the aforecited motion, Judge Andal still issued the substantially identical orders assailed herein. ISSUE: WON Judge Andal acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he denied the Pet Motion for Inhibition in several criminal and civil cases and continued in taking cognizance of said cases and all other cases pending before him. HELD: No. There is no valid ground relied upon to support pet motion. Pet maintains that there is an existing state of hostility bet the judge and him sparked by his filing of petitions for certiorari and administrative cases against the judge. By Judges refusal to inhibit himself, Judge Andal has violated his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection of the law, access to the court and speedy disposition of cases thus making the judge civilly liable under Art. 32 of the CC. Bec of the Judges refusal, pet and his family have suffered from mental anguish and incurred expenses for which they must be compensated. Judge maintains that there was no valid ground to justify his inhibition and he also claims that he doesnt resent the filing of certiorari cases against him as he has neither the reason nor the luxury of time to entertain such a feeling. He is preoccupied with his case load to even think of it. He also stresses that he has nothing personal against the pet as he does not know the pet personally. Also he is just impleaded nominally only. The fact that the motion for inhibition cited no valid ground was confirmed by the prosecuting fiscal and the counsel for the accused in the criminal cases and the defendants in civil cases The denial of said motion was not whimsical nor capricious. SOL GEN states that the state of hostility is purely imaginary bec there has been no presentation of evidence to support pet conclusion. On his taking cognizance of the cases pending before him, it has been held that mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending before the lower court does not interrupt the course of the latter when there is no writ of injunction restraining it. Mere filing of administrative cases against resp judge would not disqualify him from hearing the cases for if on every occasion the party apparently aggrieved would be allowed to either stop the proceedings in order to await the final decision on the desired disqualification, or demand the immediate inhibition of the judge on the basis alone of his being so charged, many cases would have to be kept pending. Prejudice is not to be presumed.

With regard to pet claim of damages under ART 32, the court held that the purpose of the codal provision is to provide sanction to the deeply cherished rights and freedom enshrined in the constitution Message: No man may seek to violate those sacred rights with impunity. Andals denial of the motion for inhibition and proceeding with the trial of the cases pending before his court were done in a regular manner and were considered his official acts, therefore he is not liable for damages. The court stressed an important point which should not be overlooked and that is the petitioners audacious propensity of filing certiorari and administrative cases against the resp judge based on flimsy and unfounded charges he can conceive. Bec of his act, Aparicio is Reprimanded for his conduct because he is expected to give due respect to the courts of justice and judicial officers, not for the sake of the incumbent office but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. Petition dismissed.

Gandionco vs. Pearanda Facts: Petitioner applied for injunction to annul a) the order of the resp judge ordering the pet to pay support pendente lite to private resp his wife and their child b) denying pet motion to suspend hearings for the action for legal separation filed against him by priv resp. The private resp wife filed with the RTC of Misamis Oriental a complaint against pet husband for legal separation on the ground of concubinage with a petition for support and payment of damages. This is a civil case. Also the wife filed a complaint against husband for concubinage which is a criminal cases. Resp wife filed application for provisional remedy of support pendent elite pending the decision for legal separation and the judge ordered payment of support pendente lite. Pet contends that civil action for legal separation and the incidents consequent thereto such as the support should be suspended in view of the criminal case for concubinage filed against him. What he cites as a support for his contention is Art. 111 sec 3 of the 1985 Rules of Crim Pro which states that after a criminal action has been commenced, the pending civil action arising from the same offense shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found until final judgment in crim proceeding has been rendered. Pet contends that legal separation cases is inextricably tied to criminal action so that all proceedings for leg sep should be suspended to await the conviction or acquittal of the pet. He cited Jerusalem vs. Hon Roberto Zurbano but this cases has relied solely on Sec. 1 Rule 107 of the THEN prov of ROC which stated that after a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted and the same shall be suspended until final judgment. ISSUE:WON the civil action for legal separation should be suspended until final judgment for conbcubinage is rendered.WON Judge is disqualified from hearing the case because of his disregard of applicable laws and existing doctrines, thereby showing partiality to private resp. HELD: Anent first issue: NO. 1985 Rules on Crim Pro should be taken into consideration. But this provision, sec. 1, Rule 107 of then ROC, did not clearly state as the1985 Rules do, that the civil action to be suspended with or upon the filing of a criminal action is one which is to enforce civil liability arising from the offense. The civil action for leg sep based on concubinage may proceed ahead of or simultaneously with, a criminal action for concubinage bec said civil action is NOT one to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense even if both the civil and criminal actions arise from or are related to the same offense. Civil action is intended to obtain the right to live separately, with the legal consequences thereof, such as the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains, custody of offsprings, support, and disqualification from inheriting from the innocent spouse among others. Decree of legal separation on ground of concubinage may be issued upon proof of preponderance of evidence in the action for legal separation. No criminal proceeding or conviction is necessary.

ACT. 2710 of absolute divorce-allowed that guilt has to be established first ,however in the present CC it has not been reproduced or adopted by the framers. On pendent elite, this is a remedy which the can be availed of in an action for legal separation. If pet finds it too onerous, he can file a motion to modify or reduce the same. Anent second issue: No. He is not disqualified in hearing the case. Divergence of opinions bet a judge hearing a case and a partys counsel as to applicable laws and jurisprudence is not a sufficient ground to disqualify the judge from hearing the case on the ground of bias and manifest partiality. Judges disposition is found to be sound and well-taken. Petition dismissed.