Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ARTURO AND JOSEFINA DE GUZMAN v. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-15-2405 2015-01-12	ANTONIO S. ASCAÑO v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO SERENO, C.J.
Petitioners failed to substantiate their allegation that respondent acted with bias and partiality. Mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough.[19] Clear and convincing evidence is necessary to prove a charge of bias and partiality.[20] The circumstances detailed by petitioners failed to prove that respondent exhibited "manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence" in the discharge of his judicial functions, as required by Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, when he issued the Order lifting the TRO.
	AM No. MTJ-02-1422 2003-11-21	NEGROS GRACE PHARMACY v. JUDGE ALFREDO P. HILARIO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
After a close review of the records, we find that complainant failed to substantiate his allegation that respondent judge acted with bias and partiality. At most, such allegation is a mere suspicion or conjecture. Mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough.[10] There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality.[11] Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed especially if weighed against a judge's sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to the person and do equal right to the poor and rich.[12] In People vs. Court of Appeals,[13] we held:"To disqualify a judge on the ground of bias and prejudice, the movant must prove the same by clear and convincing evidence. Mere allegation and perception of bias from the tenor and the language of a judge alone is insufficient to show prejudgment. Neither can the perception that the pleading of the parties have become personal and loaded with insulting innuendos be the basis for the inhibition. Allowing inhibition for these reasons would open the flood gates to forum shopping. Unless there is concrete proof that a judge has a personal interest in the case and his bias is shown to have stemmed from an extra-judicial source, this Court shall always commence from the presumption that a judge shall decide on the merits of a case with an unclouded vision of facts."