Guideposts in the Voluntary Inhibition of Judges Based on the Ruling in A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC (Re: Query of Executive Judge Estrella T. Estrada, Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, on the Conflicting Views of Regional Trial Court Judges Masadao and Elizaga Re: Criminal Case No. 4954-M)

May 11, 2022

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 105-2022

 

In its Resolution dated 22 February 2022 in A.M. No. 21-03-04-SC(Re: Request for Investigation of Divina Law Office Relative to Civil Case No. R-MKT-20-02448-SC, S.P. No. 20-02409-SP, and Civil Case No. R-PSY-20-02268-CV), the Court En BancRESOLVED to ADOPT the following guideposts in the voluntary inhibition of judges based on the ruling in A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC(Re: Query of Executive Judge Estrella T. Estrada, Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, on the Conflicting Views of Regional Trial Court Judges Masadao and Elizaga Re: Criminal Case No. 4954-M), to wit:

(1) The Executive Judge and/or the Judge either designated to hear an inhibited case or to whom the case was re-raffled, cannot raise the issue of the propriety of the exercise of the discretion of a judge to disqualify himself/herself under Section 1 and/or 2, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, to the OCA;

(2) The Executive Judge shall immediately follow the provisions either for the designation or raffle of an inhibited case as set forth in Sections 1 and 8, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC dated January 27, 2004, OCA Nos. 200-2016, 100-2018 and other applicable OCA Circulars and other issuances on disqualification/s and inhibition/s; and

(3) The Judge who is either immediately designated by the Executive Judge to hear the inhibited case or to whom the inhibited case was re-raffled, shall immediately take cognizance of the inhibited case and try the same before the premises of the inhibiting Judge.

For the information, guidance, and strict compliance of all concerned.

(SGD.) RAUL BAUTISTA VILLANUEVACourt Administrator