Hurtado vs. Judalena

A judge is mandatorily disqualified from sitting in a case where he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity; an order issued by him despite that disqualification is annulled and set aside.

Respondent Judge Arsenio M. Gonong is the brother of private respondent Isabel G. Judalena. Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court disqualifies a judge from sitting in any case in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, absent the written consent of all parties in interest signed by them and entered upon the record.

On March 14, 1975, Isabel G. Judalena filed a complaint against Palmarin Q. Hurtado before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, docketed as Civil Case No. 485-IV. She alleged that she had sold to Hurtado a 75-square-meter portion of her parcel of land, on the condition that Hurtado would cause a subdivision survey to segregate the portion sold from the bigger portion, after which he would construct a concrete fence between the two lots. According to Judalena, Hurtado, contrary to their agreement, built a concrete fence much beyond the 75-square-meter portion and started construction of a house on the encroached portion. She prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain Hurtado from constructing the house on the controverted parcel of land.

On March 31, 1975, Hurtado filed his answer, denying Judalena's claim that he had encroached on the property and asserting that he and his family owned the property on which they were constructing their house.

On April 2, 1975, respondent Judge Arsenio M. Gonong, the brother of private respondent Judalena, issued an ex-parte order directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond of P1,000.00. Judalena filed the required bond on April 4, 1975, and a writ of preliminary injunction was issued, ordering Hurtado, his father, and other persons acting on his behalf to refrain and desist from constructing a house on the land in controversy and to stop disturbing in any other manner Judalena's possession.

The next day, April 5, 1975, the respondent judge issued an order voluntarily disqualifying himself from hearing the case in view of his close relationship with the plaintiff and directed the transmittal of the records to the incumbent Executive Judge for proper assignment to the other judges of the court. On April 10, 1975, Hurtado filed a motion for the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction in order to preserve the status quo until the designation of another judge to try the case, praying that the respondent judge hear the motion to give him an opportunity to rectify the mistake or error he had committed in taking cognizance of the case and in granting ex-parte the issuance of the writ. The respondent judge denied the motion on April 21, 1975, prompting Hurtado to file the instant petition.

• Disqualification of the Presiding Judge: Petitioner argued that the April 2, 1975 order was issued in violation of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, the respondent judge being the brother of the private respondent Isabel G. Judalena.

• Disqualification of Judges: Whether the respondent judge, being the brother of the private respondent, was disqualified from sitting in Civil Case No. 485-IV under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, and whether the order he issued is valid.

• Disqualification of Judges: Yes. Section 1, Rule 137 mandatorily prohibits a judge from sitting in a case where he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity; the respondent judge, being the brother of the private respondent, was disqualified, and the order he issued was annulled and set aside.

• Disqualification of Judges: Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court enumerates without ambiguity the cases in which any judge or judicial officer is disqualified from acting as such. The provision, in no uncertain terms, expressly prohibits a judge or judicial officer from sitting in a case where he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, and this disqualification is mandatory. In the case at bar, it is not denied that the respondent judge is the brother of the respondent Isabel G. Judalena. Their close relationship notwithstanding, and despite the prohibition, the respondent judge took cognizance of the case and issued the controversial order directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, after which he inhibited himself from sitting on the case for the same reasons. The SC characterized such action as reprehensible, as it erodes the all-important confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Accordingly, the SC annulled and set aside the April 2, 1975 order and made the temporary restraining order permanent.

• Mandatory disqualification of judges under Rule 137 — Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court disqualifies a judge from sitting in any case in which (a) he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise; (b) he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity; (c) he is related to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law; (d) he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel; or (e) he has presided in any inferior court whose ruling or decision is the subject of review — without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record. The disqualification is mandatory, not subject to the judge's discretion. A judge who takes cognizance of a case despite such disqualification acts reprehensibly, eroding confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, and the order he issues is annulled. In this case, the respondent judge, the brother of the private respondent, issued an ex-parte writ of preliminary injunction and only inhibited himself the following day; the SC annulled the order.
• Subsequent inhibition does not cure the defect — A judge's voluntary inhibition after already taking cognizance of a case and issuing an order does not validate that order. The respondent judge's April 5, 1975 inhibition did not save the April 2, 1975 writ of preliminary injunction, which the SC annulled and set aside.

• "The said section, in no uncertain terms, expressly prohibits a judge or judicial officer from sitting in a case where he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguity or affinity. This is mandatory." — The SC's canonical statement that the disqualification under Section 1, Rule 137 is mandatory, not discretionary.
• "Such action, to our mind, is reprehensible as it erodes the all important confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary." — The SC's condemnation of a judge who takes cognizance of a case despite a known ground for disqualification and inhibits himself only after issuing an order.
• "WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is hereby granted and the order of April 2. 1975, issued in Civil Case No. 485-IV of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, is hereby annulled and set aside." — The dispositive portion, showing the consequence of the mandatory disqualification.

• Mateo vs. Villaluz, G.R. Nos. L-34756-59, March 31, 1973, 50 SCRA 18 — Cited as authority for the mandatory disqualification of judges under Section 1, Rule 137.
• People vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. L-39993, May 19, 1975, 64 SCRA 90 — Cited as authority for the mandatory disqualification of judges under Section 1, Rule 137.

• Section 1, Rule 137, Revised Rules of Court — Disqualification of judges. The SC applied the provision to hold that the respondent judge, being the brother of the private respondent (a relation within the sixth degree of consanguinity), was mandatorily disqualified from sitting in the case. The provision also allows a judge, in the exercise of sound discretion, to disqualify himself for just or valid reasons other than those enumerated.