RULE 137

RE: INHIBITION OF JUDGE EDDIE ROJAS

FACTS: The case of People v. Rosalina Tauro et. al. was initially tried in the RTC, with Judge Rojas as
public prosecutor. While the case was pending, respondent was appointed judge of the trial court on
Nov. 12, 1996. As the original counsel for the accused did not interpose any objection, Judge Rojas
decided to inhibit himself from the case.

ISSUE: WON Judge Rojas could inhibit himself.

HELD: Yes. Section 2 of Rule 137 of the ROC provides that no sitting judge who was the counsel for a
party pending before him should proceed without the written consent of all parties interested. In the
case at bar, Judge Rojas did not obtain a written consent for a year and a half. He also issued various
reset orders. Therefore, in cases like this, a judge should inhibit himself.

PEOPLE V. ONG AND IMELDA MARCOS

FACTS: Petitioners pray that public respondent be permanently enjoined from presiding over the trial
and sitting in permanently enjoined from judging in these 10 consolidated cases against Imelda Marcos
for the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act. It must be noted that the above cases
relate to the civil case 0141 (forfeiture case) arising from the petition for the forfeiture filed by the
presidential commission on good government (PCGG) on behalf of the republic of the Philippines to
recover from former Pres. Marcos and herein private respondents funds alleged to be ill-gotten and
deposited under different Swiss bank accounts in the name of several foreign foundations. The motion is
grounded on that fact that the public respondent shows manifest hostility towards its counsel, Atty.
Chavez.

iSSUE: WON any act which would give an appearance of impropriety to a judge is a ground for inhibition.

HELD: Yes. In the new code of judicial conduct, the duty of the judge is not only to administer justice
butt to also conduct themselves in a manner that would avoid any suspicion of irregularity. In the case at
bar, the manifest hostility that is present is a suspicious act. Therefore, he should inhibit.

RAMISCAL V. HERNANDEZ

FACTS: Ramiscal, then president of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation
Benefits System, signed several deeds of sale for the acquisition of parcels of land for the development
of housing projects and for other concerns. However, it appears that the landowners from whom the
AFP-RSBS acquired the lost executed unilateral deeds of sale providing for a lesser consideration,
apparently, to evade the payment of correct taxes. Hence, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
conducted an extensive investigation in 1998 on the alleged anomaly. Accordingly, information were
filed against Ramiscal. On July 27, 2003, junior officers and enlisted men from the elite units of the AFP
took over Oakwood property to air grievances about Graft and Corruption in the military. In response to
the incident, President Arroyo created a fact finding commission. Ramiscal’s wife was appointed as
presidential adviser in the new office. She then became an associate justice for the Sandiganbayan and
assigned to its 4th division. Ramiscal prays that Judge Hernandez inhibit as Carolina was a commissioner
of the commission.

ISSUE: WON the spouse relationship creates the impression of impartiality and bias, thus, Judge
Hernandez should inhibit.

HELD: No. As provided by Rule 137 of the ROC, extrinsic evidence should be established over claims of
impartiality and bias. In the case at bar, it only involves mere imputation of bias or impartiality as a
ground for inhibition. Therefore, Judge Hernandez should not inhibit.