Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HUBERT WEBB v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-09-2190 2010-04-23	HADJA SOHURAH DIPATUAN v. JUDGE MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA PERALTA, J.
To be disqualifying, 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. Opinions formed in the course of judicial proceedings, although erroneous, as long as they are based on the evidence presented and conduct observed by the judge, do not prove personal bias or prejudice on the part of the judge. As a general rule, repeated rulings against a litigant, no matter how erroneous and vigorously and consistently expressed, are not a basis for disqualification of a judge on grounds of bias and prejudice. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself. Although the decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a judge's integrity, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be insufficient to establish a case against the judge.[11]
	GR No. 171137 2009-06-05	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. SPS. WILSON DY HONG PI AND LOLITA DY AND SPS. PRIMO CHUYACO PUNO, J.
At the outset, we underscore that while a party has the right to seek the inhibition or disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handling the case, this right must be weighed with the duty of a judge to decide cases without fear of repression.[59] Respondents consequently have no vested right to the issuance of an Order granting the motion to inhibit, given its discretionary nature.[60]
	AM No. RTJ-03-1762 2008-12-17	SERGIO v. JUDGE JOSE S. MAJADUCON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Respondent judge violated the above canon when he dispensed with the raffle and took cognizance of Civil Case No. 7066 as well as ordered its outright dismissal and cited the complainants in contempt of court. He thus created the impression that he intended to favor his former clients, Melencio and Dominga. His actuations gave ground for the parties to doubt his impartiality and objectivity. A judge should strive to be at all times wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. He has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to its integrity.[34] Well-known is the judicial norm that judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. A critical component of due process is a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, for all the other elements of due process, like notice and hearing, would be meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a partial and biased judge.[35]
	AM NO. RTJ-04-1831 2007-02-02	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. VICENTE A. PACQUING CORONA, J.
Furthermore, for allegations of bias and partiality to stand, petitioner should have demonstrated that respondent judge's decisions and orders came from extrajudicial sources or from some bases other than what he had learned from his study of the case.[30] Decisions formed in the course of judicial proceedings, although they appear erroneous, are not necessarily partial as long as they are culled from the arguments and evidence of the parties.[31] The party who alleges partiality must prove it with clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner failed in that aspect.
	AM NO. RTJ-03-1809 2006-10-17	BUSILAC BUILDERS v. JUDGE CHARLES A. AGUILAR GARCIA, J.
[15] Webb v. People, G.R. No. 127262, July 24, 1997,
	GR NOS. 162130-39 2006-05-05	PEOPLE v. JUSTICE GREGORY S. ONG AZCUNA, J.
Similarly, the right of a party to seek the inhibition or disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handling the case must be balanced with the latter's sacred duty to decide cases without fear of repression.[33] The movant must therefore prove the ground of bias and prejudice by clear and convincing evidence to disqualify a judge from participating in a particular trial.
	GR NO. 165606 2006-02-06	DEUTSCHE BANK MANILA v. SPS. CHUA YOK SEE AND REBECCA SEE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioner's contention that the trial court showed bias and prejudgment of the case is likewise without merit. To disqualify a judge on the ground of bias and prejudice, the movant must prove the same with clear and convincing evidence.[46] Bare allegations of partiality will not suffice. It cannot be presumed, especially if weighed against the sacred oaths of office of magistrates, requiring them to administer justice fairly and equitably.[47]