Ong v. Basco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case stems from a civil suit filed by respondent Lucia N. Basco against petitioner Willie Ong, doing business as Excel Fitness Center. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 43, ruled in favor of Ms. Basco, ordering Mr. Ong to pay P200,000 in moral damages, P150,000 in exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Procedural History: Following the RTC's decision on April 23, 2004, Mr. Ong filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Inhibition against the presiding judge, citing bias and partiality. On September 13, 2004, the judge denied both motions. Mr. Ong then filed a Notice of Appeal, which was docketed as CA-G.R. No. CV-83646. Subsequently, on December 14, 2004, he also filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 87699), alleging that the judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion for inhibition and that the decision was rendered with undue haste. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed Mr. Ong's petition for certiorari, ruling that it was not the proper remedy as an appeal was available and adequate. The appellate court also found no evidence of bias or grave abuse of discretion. Mr. Ong now seeks review by this Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari, contending that it was the proper remedy against the denial of the motion for inhibition, especially given the alleged inadequacy of the appeal under the circumstances.
Issue(s)
Whether a special civil action for certiorari was the proper remedy against the denial of the motion for inhibition. Whether, under the special circumstances of the case, considering allegations of bias and partiality, the remedy of appeal was inadequate to relieve petitioner from the injurious effects of the denial of the motion for inhibition, and whether the denial constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari as a remedy: The Court held that under Section 2, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, no appeal or stay shall be allowed from a judge's decision in favor of their own competency until after final judgment. In this case, a judgment on the merits had already been rendered by the RTC. The availability of an ordinary appeal from the main decision provided a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy for the petitioner to raise the issue of the trial judge's alleged error in ruling on her own competency. Therefore, a special civil action for certiorari was no longer proper. On the inadequacy of appeal, allegations of bias and partiality, and grave abuse of discretion: While acknowledging that certiorari may be resorted to in appropriate cases even when an appeal is available, the Court emphasized that this is only in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear showing of inadequacy of appeal. The present case did not fall under such exceptions. The denial of the motion for inhibition occurred after a judgment on the merits had been rendered, and the judge had acted within her official duty in resolving the motion. The Court found no basis for the petitioner's claims of bias and partiality against Judge Reyes, stating that mere suspicion is not enough. The grounds for disqualification must stem from an extrajudicial source. The Court noted that voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion, and the alleged misapprehension of facts would constitute an error of judgment correctible by ordinary appeal, not certiorari. The Court reiterated that certiorari requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy from the denial of a motion for inhibition when an appeal from the main decision is available, as the issue of the judge's competency can be raised on appeal. Certiorari is only proper in exceptional cases where appeal is clearly inadequate or where there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.