Antonia Gutang VS CA, Judge Makasiar, Judge dela Cruz, Alberto

Looyuko, Juan Uy
GR No. 124760, July 8,1998
Facts:
1. August 30, 1994, an order respondent Judge Marino dela Cruz
granted two motions (writ of possession over subject property and
issuance of final deed of sale and title) in a civil case favoring
private respondents.
2. May 17, 1995 private respondents filed motion for alias writ of
possession since the sheriff who previously serves the writ, died.
3. June 7, 1995 private respondents filed a Motion to inhibit Judge
dela Cruz alleging that the respondent judge did not act on their
motion for issuance of an alias writ of possession.
4. July 26, 1995 Respondent Judge dela Cruz Jr, denying the motion
for inhibition but voluntarily inhibited himself.
5. The case was re-raffled presided by respondent Judge Makasiar,
however herein petitioner filed petition for mandamus, certiorari
and prohibition.
Issue:
Whether or not the voluntary inhibition of Judge dela Cruz is valid?
Held:
Yes.
Sc held that mandamus would not lie to compel respondent judge to
proceed with the hearing the case since the grant or denial of the motion to
inhibit involves the exercise of discretion. The right duty to exercise this
discretion has been imposed on him by the Rules of court with regard to any
matter brought before him. Furthermore, petitioners have no vested right to the
issuance of the motion to inhibit given its discretionary nature.
Section 1, 2nd paragraph Rule 137 of the Rules of Court states: A judge
may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a
case, for just and valid reasons other than those mention in p.1.

Raymualdo Buzon vs Judge Tirso Velasco (February 13, 1994)

Facts:
After a preliminary investigation the office of the city prosecutor filed the
information for murder in criminal case against accused Fernando Tan for the
death of Raymualdo Buzon Sr. On may 31, 1989 warrant of arrest was issued
notably no bail was recommended in the warrant. February 1991, the
respondent judge granted bail to the accused in the amount of P50,000 and
accordingly recalled the warrant arrest after the accused had posted the
required bond. On February 10, 1992, the prosecution submitted a motion to
cancel bail alleging that the Information filed was tampered, that the word No
was snowpaked and figures of P50,000 was added. The motion for bail was
granted without hearing nor comment from the prosecution. The prosecution
further asserted that the offense of murder is punishable by Reclusion
Perpetua where bail is not a matter of right.
Issue:
Whether or not the Respondent Judge violated rule 1.01 of code of
judicial conduct?
Held:
Yes.
A judge should be embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence. Respondent fell short of this basic canon and by his conduct did
not inspire confidence on the part of litigants in his competence and knowledge
of the law. The respondent not only committed the mistake of granting bail to
the accused without hearing. He likewise practically reversed the original
warrant where no bail was recommended.
For capital offenses like murder bail shall not be granted when the
evidence of guilt is strong. When the admission to bail is a matter of discretion,
the judge is required to conduct hearing. Failure to conduct of such is
inexcusable.