JDC

Fecundo v Berjamen

This case involves a petition against public respondent judge for allegedly
being partial in an election case to the detriment of the petitioner
Acts which tend to show partiality according to petitioner
-

Use of unbecoming language in an order That the implementation of the

order of this Court is being vehemently opposed by the municipal mayor
and his cohorts. Ours is a government of rascals. To give in to this kind of
behaviour of the respondent and his cohorts, we are just like savages in
the jungles where might is might
Severely reprimanding and scolding petitioner in court
Statement in open court by the judge than a Motion for Reconsideration or
motion to inhibit will be denied.

FACTS:

Petitioner is a mayoralty candidate and won over private respondent

Private respondent then filed an election protest against petitioner
The case was then assigned to Branch 20 RTC presided over by public
respondent
Petitioner filed a motion for inhibition but was denied by the public
respondent ( presiding judge ) because of the petitioners failure to comply
with the 3 day notice rule
No motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner because of the
public respondents statement in open court that should they filed an MR, itll
just be dismissed.
According to the petitioner, the acts of the public respondent show partiality
or antipathy towards him.
Private respondent on the other hand, contends that petitioner is guilty of
deliberately delaying the resolution of the election protest
- First is through a petition for certiorari with the SC
- Second, by disqualifying the judge ( motion to inhibit )
Respondent judge, for his part, denies all the accusations, imputing them to
petitioner's wild imagination, political immaturity and childish mentality.
Contends further, that the petition for inhibition is another way of delaying
the resolution of the election protest

ISSUE:
WON the respondent judge should inhibit himself from hearing and deciding the
case because of his alleged partiality.
Ruling:

Canon 3 Section 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine

states that:
Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or could come before them,
Make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of
such
Proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make
any
Comment in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or
issue.
Yes not because the judge is proven to be partial but only to remove any taint of
suspicion that the decision of the judge might be biased.
While it is true that partiality and prejudgment may constitute a just or valid reason
for the trial judge to voluntarily inhibit himself from hearing the case, it is not
enough that the same be merely alleged. It is now settled that mere suspicion that
a judge is partial to one of the parties to the case is not enough; there should be
evidence to prove the charge
Moreover, second only to the duty of rendering a just decision, is the duty of doing it
in a manner that will not arouse any suspicion as to its fairness and the integrity of
the Judge. Consequently, we take it to be the true intention of the law stated in
general terms that no judge shall preside in a case in which he is not wholly free,
disinterested impartial and independent (30 Am. Jur. Supra) because
... However upright the judge, and however free from the slightest inclination but to
do justice, there is peril of his unconscious bias or prejudice, or lest any
former opinion formed exparte may still linger to affect unconsciously his
present judgment, or lest he may be moved or swayed unconsciously by
his knowledge of the facts which may not be revealed or stated at the
trial, or cannot under the rules of evidence. No effort of the will can shut out
memory; there is no art of forgetting. We cannot be certain that the human mind
will deliberate and determine unaffected by that which it knows, but which it should
forget in that process.
Note:
The language used by the judge in an order issued by him manifests at the very
least an exasperation bordering on indignation at petitioner and his tactics, which
may unnecessarily cloud his impartiality in deciding the election case at hand.
The judge rendering it must, at all times, maintain the appearance of fairness
and impartiality. His language, both written and spoken, must be guarded and
measured, lest the best of intentions be misconstrued construed.