EN BANC
[IPI No. 15-235-CA-J. February 2, 2016.]
RE: COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION DATED JUNE 11, 2015 FILED BY JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO AGAINST JUSTICE EDWIN D. SORONGON OF THE FORMER SPECIAL SEVENTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedFEBRUARY 2, 2016, which reads as follows:
"IPI No. 15-235-CA-J — RE: COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION DATED JUNE 11, 2015 FILED BY JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO AGAINST JUSTICE EDWIN D. SORONGON OF THE FORMER SPECIAL SEVENTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA.
RESOLUTION
Complainant Jose Marcel Panlilio (Panlilio), Chairperson and President of Friday's Holdings, Inc. (FHI), filed the present complaint and request for investigation against Court of Appeals' Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon (Justice Sorongon) in relation to CA-G.R. SP No. 134413, entitled "Mila Yap Sumndad, petitioner v. Friday's Holdings, Inc., et al., respondents."
In his Complaint dated 11 June 2015, Panlilio alleged that Justice Sorongon, the ponente of CA-G.R. SP No. 134413, was biased and partial against FHI. According to his source, Justice Sorongon intervened and prevented FHI from securing a favorable judgment in the case. Panlilio claimed that Justice Sorongon issued a preliminary injunction against FHI and transferred the possession of the subject property to petitioner in CA-G.R. SP No. 134413, contrary to law. Panlilio further alleged that Justice Sorongon denied the motion to inhibit from CA-G.R. SP No. 134413, as if he had an interest in the case.
In his Comment dated 25 August 2015, Justice Sorongon strongly denied Panlilio's allegations. Justice Sorongon claimed that Panlilio's allegations were baseless and the Resolutions, granting the writ of preliminary injunction and denying FHI's motion for inhibition, were rendered in accordance with the law and existing jurisprudence. Justice Sorongon alleged that Panlilio is misusing court processes by weeding out magistrates who find his prayers unmeritorious. Panlilio earlier sought the inhibition of Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda when the latter issued a temporary restraining order against FHI.
We dismiss the complaint.
The bare allegation of the judge's partiality is not enough in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role of dispensing justice in accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor. 1 The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. 2 Extrinsic evidence must be presented to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself. 3 Opinions framed in the course of judicial proceedings, although erroneous, as long as they are based on the evidence presented and conduct observed by the judge, do not prove bias or prejudice. 4 Repeated rulings against a litigant, no matter how erroneous, are not bases for disqualification. 5
In the present case, aside from his self-serving allegations, Panlilio failed to adduce any extrinsic evidence to prove that Justice Sorongon was biased and partial against FHI. He did not present his alleged reliable source. Thus, his allegations remain as hearsay. A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. 6 Also, the Resolution granting the preliminary injunction against FHI does not by itself show bias or partiality, as it was based on the Rules of Court and the evidence presented. Thus, Panlilio's allegations are more speculative than a product of concrete proof.
We also find no reason for Justice Sorongon to disqualify himself from the case simply because of baseless accusations of bias and partiality. To allow Justice Sorongon to recuse himself from this case will set a mischievous precedent and open the floodgates to forum-shopping for a friendly judge. In any case, CA-G.R. SP No. 134413 was already remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Makati for reception of evidence of the contending parties.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the present complaint and request for investigation. Costs against complainant." Caguioa, J., on official leave. (adv26)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. BGen. (Ret.) Ramiscal, Jr. v. Justice Hernandez, 645 Phil. 550 (2010).
2. Id. Cepeda v. Judge Cloribel-Purugganan, 479 Phil. 365 (2004).
3. Id. Gochan v. Gochan, 446 Phil. 433 (2003).
4. People of the Philippines v. Kho, 409 Phil. 326 (2001).
5. Id. citing Pimentel v. Salanga, 128 Phil. 176 (1967).
6. Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 36.