Home 
[G.R. No. 144618. August 15, 2003]
JORGE CHIN and MARIA SANDOVAL CHIN,
petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARSENIO J. MAGPALE, MARIANO TAN BON DIONG, and REGISTER OF DEEDS of QUEZON CITY,
respondents.
x x x
The issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge. It is a subjective test the result of which the reviewing tribunal will not disturb in the absence of any manifest finding of arbitrariness and whimsicality. The discretion given to trial judges is an acknowledgment of the fact that these judges are in a better position to determine the issue of inhibition as they are the ones who directly deal with the parties-litigants in their courtrooms.
As we have held in Pimentel v. Salanga, a judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation. But, when a suggestion is made of record that he might be induced to act in favor of one party or with bias or prejudice against a litigant arising out of circumstance reasonably capable of inciting such a state of mind, the judge should conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the people's faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. A salutary norm is that he should reflect on the probability that a losing party might nurture at the back of his mind the thought that the judge had unmeritoriously tilted the scales of justice against him. A judge could gracefully inhibit himself where the case could be better heard by another judge and where no appreciable prejudice would be occasioned to others involved therein. If after reflection he should resolve to voluntarily desist from sitting in a case where his motives or fairness might be seriously impugned, his action is to be interpreted as giving meaning and substance to the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137.
The decision on whether he should inhibit himself, however, must be based on his rational and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case brought before him. The second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137, does not give the judge the unfettered discretion to decide whether he should desist from hearing a case. The inhibition must be for just and valid causes. The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough grounds for a judge to inhibit, especially when it is without any basis.
In the present case, we see no cogent reason for respondent judge to disqualify himself from the case, and we are constrained to rule that respondent Court of Appeals erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the resolution of Judge Magpale to voluntarily inhibit himself. An allegation of prejudgment, without more, constitutes mere conjecture and is not one of the ?just and valid reasons? contemplated in the second paragraph of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court for which a judge may inhibit himself from hearing the case. We have repeatedly held that mere suspicion that a judge is partial to a party is not enough. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence and without fear or favor. There should be adequate evidence to prove the allegations, and there must be showing that the judge had an interest, personal or otherwise, in the prosecution of the case. To be a disqualifying circumstance, the bias and prejudice must be shown to have stemmed from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.
x x x
We agree that judges have the duty of protecting the integrity of the judiciary as an institution worthy of public trust and confidence. But under the circumstances here, we also agree that unnecessary inhibition of judges in a case would open the floodgates to forum-shopping. More so, considering that Judge Magpale was not the first judge that TAN had asked to be inhibited on the same allegation of prejudgment. To allow successive inhibitions would justify petitioners? apprehension about the practice of certain litigants shopping for a judge more friendly and sympathetic to their cause than previous ones.
As held in Mateo, Jr. v. Hon. Villaluz, the invitation for judges to disqualify themselves need not always be heeded. It is not always desirable that they should do so. It might amount in certain cases to their being recreant about their duties. It could also be an instrument whereby a party could inhibit a judge in the hope of getting another more amenable to his persuasion.
