This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-07-03 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We have ruled that the issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge.[31] To justify the call for inhibition, there must be extrinsic evidence to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself.[32] In this case, we have sufficiently explained that Judge Gironella did not err in submitting the case for decision because of Sally's continued refusal to present her evidence. | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A peripheral issue which nonetheless deserves our attention is the question about the credibility of the Comelec brought about by the alleged professional relationship between Comelec Chairman Brillantes on one hand and the complainant Senator Pimentel and Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), GMA's rival in the 2004 elections, on the other hand; and by the other Commissioners'[147] reasons for their partial inhibition. To be sure, Chairman Brillantes' relationship with FPJ and Senator Pimentel is not one of the grounds for the mandatory disqualification of a Commissioner. At its most expansive, it may be considered a ground for voluntary inhibition which is indeed discretionary as the same was primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the Commissioner judge based on his or her rational and logical assessment of the case.[148] Bare allegations of bias and prejudice are not enough in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that a judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence without fear or favor.[149] It being discretionary and since Commissioner Brillantes was in the best position to determine whether or not there was a need to inhibit from the case, his decision to participate in the proceedings, in view of higher interest of justice, equity and public interest, should be respected. While a party has the right to seek the inhibition or disqualification of a judge (or prosecutor or Commissioner) who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and independent in handling the case, this right must be weighed with his duty to decide cases without fear of repression.[150] | |||||