G.R. Nos. L-69640-45 April 30, 1985
Miguel P. Paderanga, as City Mayor of Gingoog City, petitioner, vs. Hon. Judge Cesar R. Azura, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVI, 10th Judicial Region Medina, Misamis Oriental, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Miguel Paderanga, the City Mayor of Gingoog City, filed a Petition for Certiorari seeking to annul an Order of respondent Judge Cesar R. Azura that denied his Motion for Inhibition. Paderanga sought to disqualify the Judge from hearing seven pending cases involving the city and its officials. The grounds for inhibition included loss of trust and confidence in the Judge’s competence and impartiality, particularly due to administrative complaints filed against him by the petitioner. Petitioner also alleged bias, oppressive dispensation of justice, and abuse of the contempt power, citing an instance where the Judge ordered the arrest of the Mayor and city council members and imposed excessive fines and bonds. Further, petitioner contended the Judge improperly issued restraining orders against tax auction sales, contrary to the applicable law.
Respondent Judge denied the Motion for Inhibition, finding the loss of trust and confidence unfounded. He attributed the plea to the City Attorney’s “grotesque arguments and haughty conduct” and the resultant fear of punishment for contempt. In his Comment to the Supreme Court, the Judge defended his actions, stating he followed Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, as no legal ground for inhibition existed. He argued that if he lacked jurisdiction in the tax cases, the proper remedy was a petition for prohibition, not inhibition.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion for Inhibition.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered respondent Judge to inhibit himself. The Court did not directly rule on the specific allegations of bias or legal error in the Judge’s prior orders. Instead, it applied the fundamental judicial guideline from Pimentel vs. Salanga, which emphasizes that a judge must conduct a careful self-examination when their capacity for fair and impartial judgment is challenged. The Court highlighted that the duty to maintain the people’s faith in the judiciary is paramount.
The seriousness of the imputations, including the filing of administrative charges, created circumstances reasonably capable of inciting a state of mind that could prejudice a litigant. In such a situation, the prudent course to avoid any suspicion of unfairness and to preserve public confidence in judicial integrity is for the judge to voluntarily recuse. By refusing to do so, respondent Judge failed to exercise sound discretion. Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered his inhibition and transferred the venue of the subject cases to the Regional Trial Courts of Cagayan de Oro City for raffle assignment.