Lim vs. Callejo, Jr.

The filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not one of the grounds that per se disqualify a judge from sitting in a case under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, and whether it constitutes a "just or valid reason" for voluntary inhibition depends on the judge's sound discretion. Prohibition does not lie to question a judge's denial of a motion for disqualification because Section 2, Rule 137 provides that no appeal or stay shall be allowed from the judge's decision in favor of his own competency until after final judgment in the case.

Delfin Lim was one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 225 for Illegal Possession of Dynamite and Blasting Caps pending before the Municipal Court of Balabac, Palawan, presided by Judge Pedro Callejo, Jr. The Rules of Court provisions on disqualification of judges (Section 1, Rule 137) and on the remedy of prohibition (Section 2, Rule 65) govern the dispute, as does Section 2, Rule 137 which prescribes the procedure for objecting to a judge's competency.

On April 12, 1966, a complaint for Illegal Possession of Dynamite and Blasting Caps was filed against Delfin Lim and two others before the Municipal Court of Balabac, Palawan, presided by Judge Pedro Callejo, Jr., docketed as Criminal Case No. 225. The arraignment and trial were set for May 30, 1966, but upon motions of the accused, the case was reset several times, the last reset being for September 8, 1966.

Before the accused could be arraigned, Lim's counsel, on September 2, 1966, sent a telegram to Judge Callejo stating that Lim had filed a complaint against the judge with the Department of Justice and praying that the judge disqualify himself from Criminal Case No. 225. On September 5, 1966, Judge Callejo issued an order denying the telegraphic request for disqualification. The judge reasoned that the filing of a complaint against a judge is not one of the grounds for disqualification under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, and that to inhibit himself in a case where the complaint was filed after the institution of the case would set a dangerous precedent whereby a litigant could obstruct the administration of justice by filing complaints, however frivolous, against any judge from whom he could not be assured of a favorable judgment.

On September 7, 1966, Lim filed with the Court of First Instance of Palawan a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction against Judge Callejo in his official capacity, praying that the judge be ordered to desist from trying Criminal Case No. 225. The court issued a writ of preliminary injunction after Lim posted a bond to answer for whatever damages the judge may sustain by reason of the issuance of the writ. On September 12, 1966, Judge Callejo, through the Provincial Fiscal, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the petition did not state a sufficient cause of action, that the petition was not the proper remedy, and that the petition was premature. At the scheduled hearing of the motion to dismiss, neither Lim nor his counsel appeared. On September 27, 1966, the court issued an order dismissing the petition for prohibition, holding the cash bond posted by Lim answerable for whatever damages the respondent judge may claim.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Lim argued that Judge Callejo committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the telegraphic motion for disqualification, given that Lim had filed an administrative complaint against the judge with the Department of Justice.
• Improper Bond Liability: Lim contended that the portion of the order holding his cash bond answerable for whatever damages Judge Callejo may claim was erroneous, since the judge was sued in his official capacity and not as a private person.

• Grounds for Dismissal: Judge Callejo, through the Provincial Fiscal, moved for dismissal of the petition for prohibition on the grounds that the petition did not state a sufficient cause of action, that the petition was not the proper remedy, and that the petition was premature.
• Estoppel on Bond: The respondent contended that Lim was estopped from claiming that the judge was not entitled to damages from the bond because Lim had deposited the same with full knowledge that it would be made to answer for whatever damages the judge may suffer by reason of a wrongful issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.

• Propriety of Prohibition: Whether the Court of First Instance of Palawan erred in dismissing the petition for prohibition against Judge Callejo.
• Liability of the Cash Bond: Whether the Court of First Instance erred in holding Lim's cash bond answerable for whatever damages Judge Callejo may claim.

• Propriety of Prohibition: No. The dismissal of the petition for prohibition was correct because neither of the two requisites for prohibition under Section 2, Rule 65 was present: Judge Callejo did not gravely abuse his discretion in denying the motion for disqualification, and there was an appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
• Liability of the Cash Bond: No. The portion of the order holding the cash bond answerable for damages was reversed because Judge Callejo was made respondent in his official capacity, and any damage or expense incurred by him would be official in nature for which no fund of private origin has to answer.

• Propriety of Prohibition: Under Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, two requisites must concur for prohibition to lie: (1) that the respondent gravely abused his discretion in denying the motion for disqualification, and (2) that there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Neither requisite was present. The ground relied upon by Lim — the filing of an administrative case against the judge — is not one of the five grounds enumerated in the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 that per se disqualify a judge from sitting in a case. Whether such filing constitutes a "just or valid reason" for voluntary inhibition under the second paragraph of Section 1 depends on the exercise of the judge's sound discretion. Judge Callejo ruled in the negative, and the Court agreed, adopting his observation that to inhibit himself in a case where the complaint was filed after the institution of the case would set a dangerous precedent whereby a litigant could obstruct the administration of justice by filing complaints, however frivolous, against any judge from whom he could not be assured of a favorable judgment. Moreover, under Section 2, Rule 137, when a judge denies an objection to his competency, no appeal or stay shall be allowed from his decision in favor of his own competency until after final judgment in the case. Citing Nacionalista Party vs. Vera and Parades vs. Gopengco, the Court held that the remedy of the party seeking disqualification is an appeal to be taken after final judgment is rendered in the case, making the petition for prohibition improper.
• Liability of the Cash Bond: Judge Callejo was made respondent in the special civil action for prohibition in his official capacity as judge of the Municipal Court of Balabac and not as a private person. Consequently, any damage or expense incurred by him in connection with the case would be official in nature and for which no fund of private origin has to answer. The respondent's contention that Lim was estopped from claiming that the judge was not entitled to damages from the bond was untenable since the posting of the bond should not have been ordered in the first place, as no private person would be prejudiced by the preliminary injunction.

• Disqualification of Judges (Mandatory Grounds) — Under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, a judge is per se disqualified from sitting in a case when: (1) he or his wife or child is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise; (2) he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity; (3) he is related to counsel within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity; (4) he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel; or (5) he has presided in any inferior court where his ruling or decision is the subject of review. The filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not among these grounds, and thus does not compel disqualification.
• Voluntary Inhibition (Sound Discretion) — Under the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137, a judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case for just or valid reasons other than the enumerated mandatory grounds. Whether the filing of an administrative complaint by an accused against the presiding judge constitutes a "just or valid reason" depends on the judge's sound discretion, and a refusal to inhibit in such circumstances does not constitute grave abuse of discretion where the complaint was filed after the institution of the case.
• Remedy for Denied Disqualification Motion — Under Section 2, Rule 137, when a judge denies an objection to his competency, no appeal or stay shall be allowed from his decision in favor of his own competency until after final judgment in the case. The proper remedy is to raise the judge's ruling on non-disqualification in an appeal from the decision on the merits, not a petition for prohibition.

• "The filing of a complaint against a judge is not one of the grounds for disqualification under Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. However, it could be made a ground under the second paragraph thereof." — This passage from Judge Callejo's order, quoted with approval by the Court, distinguishes between the mandatory grounds for disqualification and the discretionary grounds for voluntary inhibition.
• "If said complaint had been filed prior to the institution of the above-entitled case, this Court could, perhaps, inhibit himself from trying and deciding this case. But to do so in a case where same was filed subsequently, would set a dangerous precedent whereby a litigant could obstruct the administration of justice by filing complaints, however frivolous, against any judge from whom he could not be assured of a favorable judgment." — The Court adopted this reasoning to hold that Judge Callejo did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for disqualification.
• "Under this provision, the party seeking the disqualification of a judge or a judicial officer must, in writing, file with said official his objection, stating the grounds therefor, and if the objection is denied, the remedy is an appeal to be taken after final judgment is rendered in the case. For this reason, the petition for prohibition is improper." — This quotation from Nacionalista Party vs. Vera states the controlling rule that prohibition is not the proper remedy for a denied disqualification motion.

• Nacionalista Party vs. Vera, 85 Phil. 126, 128 — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that when a judge denies an objection to his competency, the remedy is an appeal taken after final judgment, making a petition for prohibition improper.
• Parades vs. Gopengco, G.R. No. L-23710, September 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 688 — Followed for the proposition that when it is the accused in a criminal case who seeks the disqualification of the trial judge, the general restriction against appeal or stay of proceedings when the judge denies the motion and rules in favor of his own competency applies, and the accused may raise the correctness of the ruling on non-disqualification in an appeal from the decision on the merits.

• Section 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court — Enumerates the five grounds that per se disqualify a judge from sitting in a case and provides that a judge may, in the exercise of sound discretion, disqualify himself for just or valid reasons other than those enumerated. Applied to hold that the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not a mandatory ground for disqualification.
• Section 2, Rule 137, Rules of Court — Provides that when a judge denies an objection to his competency, no appeal or stay shall be allowed from his decision in favor of his own competency until after final judgment in the case. Applied to hold that prohibition was not the proper remedy for Lim's objection to Judge Callejo's competency.
• Section 2, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Defines the remedy of prohibition and its requisites: proceedings without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and the absence of any appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Applied to hold that neither requisite was present in the case.

Justice Fernandez, Justice Concepcion, Jr., and Justice Melencio-Herrera concurred in the decision.

• Justice Aquino (Acting Chairman), concurring — In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Aquino stated that no damages can be awarded to Judge Callejo because he did not prove any damages and he did not follow the procedure indicated in Section 9, Rule 59, in relation to Section 20, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.