Cruz-Arevalo v. Regional Trial Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Josefina Cruz-Arevalo charged respondent Judge Lydia Querubin-Layosa with manifest bias, partiality, and ignorance of the law concerning Civil Case No. Q-03-50379. Complainant alleged that she was authorized by Conrado R. Cruz, who was undergoing medical treatment in the USA, to represent him in the said civil case through an authorization letter and a special power of attorney (SPA). Despite presenting these documents during pre-trial, the respondent judge declared Cruz non-suited due to his absence and refused to issue a written order, thereby preventing a petition for certiorari. Complainant also assailed the exclusion of certain paragraphs from her witness's affidavit without giving her counsel a chance to comment on objections, and the refusal to issue a written order for exclusion. Furthermore, she accused the respondent judge of inaction or collusion by silence for not acting on her Motions for Writs of Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum, allowing defendant Quimbo to avoid compliance. Procedural History: The respondent judge, on November 14, 2004, voluntarily inhibited herself from trying the case, citing the complainant's fears of not obtaining a fair and impartial trial, despite deeming the grounds for re-raffle unfounded. The case was ordered to be forwarded for re-raffle. The Petition: The complainant prayed for the re-raffling of the case to ensure impartiality and proper dispensation of justice.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed manifest bias and partiality and ignorance of the law in declaring Conrado R. Cruz non-suited during pre-trial. Whether the respondent judge erred in excluding paragraphs from the witness's affidavit without a written order. Whether the respondent judge was guilty of inaction, indifference, or collusion by silence for not acting on the Motions for Writs of Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum; and whether the respondent judge demonstrated bias and partiality.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against Judge Lydia Querubin-Layosa is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of declaring Conrado R. Cruz non-suited: The Court found that Conrado R. Cruz was indeed absent during the pre-trial. While non-appearance may be excused by a duly authorized representative, Cruz failed to validly constitute the complainant as such because his authorization letter was not notarized and authenticated, and the SPA was not specific to representing him in the pre-trial. Therefore, the respondent judge correctly dismissed the complaint insofar as Cruz was concerned, as his failure to appear without proper representation made him non-suited. On the exclusion of paragraphs from the affidavit and the lack of a written order: The Court reiterated that evidence formally offered may be admitted or excluded. If excluded, the party may move for it to be attached to the record or, in case of oral evidence, state the substance of the proposed testimony for purposes of appeal (offer of proof or tender of excluded evidence). The respondent judge correctly ordered the striking out of incompetent, irrelevant, or improper portions of the affidavit. Rulings on objections made during trial, as reflected in the transcript of stenographic notes, do not necessitate a separate written order, especially when made in open court and during the course of the trial. The Court cited Echaus vs. CA to support the principle that rulings made in the presence of the adverse party or during a hearing may be made orally. On the inaction on Motions for Writs of Subpoena and the alleged bias and partiality: The Court found that the respondent judge was correct in not entertaining the motions for subpoena because the corresponding legal fees were unpaid. The rules mandate the payment of prescribed fees for pleadings or applications that initiate an action or proceeding. The respondent judge was not obliged to remind the complainant about the fees. Although this issue became moot when the fees were paid and the subpoena was subsequently issued, the initial non-action due to non-payment was justified. The Court emphasized that mere suspicion of partiality is insufficient. Complainant failed to present evidence to show the alleged bias of the respondent judge. Bare allegations of partiality will not suffice in the absence of a clear showing that overcomes the presumption that the judge dispensed justice without fear or favor. The Court reiterated that a judge's appreciation or misappreciation of evidence, or rulings on objections, without proof of malice, is not sufficient to establish bias or partiality. The Court will shield judges from unfounded suits that disrupt the administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
A judge's appreciation or misappreciation of the sufficiency of evidence, or the correctness of rulings on objections during a hearing, without proof of malice, is not sufficient to show bias or partiality. Bare allegations of partiality will not suffice in the absence of a clear showing that overcomes the presumption of impartiality.