This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-10 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Anent the voluntary inhibitions of the respondent Justices concerned, it serves well to note that Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court set standing guidelines for that purpose. The guidelines have required just and valid causes to justify voluntary inhibitions. Thereby, the discretion to decide whether to voluntarily inhibit or not could not be unfettered, for, as fittingly said in Abrajano v. Heirs of Augusto F. Salas, Jr.:[53] | |||||
|
2008-09-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In a Motion for Inhibition, the movant must prove the ground for bias and prejudice by clear and convincing evidence to disqualify a judge from participating in a particular trial,[20] as voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and addressed to the sound discretion of the judge. The decision on whether she should inhibit herself must be based on her rational and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case before her.[21] Absent clear and convincing proof of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge, this Court will rule in favor of the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. | |||||