Certiorari Not the Remedy to Appeal Disqualification Rulings After Final Judgment

In Ong v. Basco (G.R. No. 167899, August 6, 2008), the Supreme Court settled a common procedural misconception: a party cannot use a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge a trial court's denial of a motion for inhibition once a judgment on the merits has already been rendered and an appeal is available.

The case arose from a damages suit before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. After the trial court ordered Willie Ong to pay damages to Lucia Basco, Ong filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for inhibition against the presiding judge, alleging bias and partiality. The judge denied both motions. Ong then filed a notice of appeal, but also separately filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the denial of his inhibition motion was a jurisdictional error.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition for lack of merit, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

The Issue

The central question was whether certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to question the denial of a motion for inhibition after the trial court had already rendered judgment.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court held that certiorari was not the proper remedy. Under the circumstances—where a judgment had been rendered and an appeal perfected—the ordinary appeal was the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to the petitioner.

The Court cited Section 2, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which provides that when a judge rules on his or her own competency, no appeal or stay shall be allowed from that ruling until after final judgment in the case. The issue of whether the judge acted correctly on her competency could be raised on appeal from the main decision.

When Certiorari May Still Be Available

The Court acknowledged that certiorari may be allowed in exceptional cases, but only where the denial of the motion for inhibition was made before the trial court's judgment on the merits, and there is a clear showing that the case is exceptional. In this case, the judge had already rendered judgment before denying the inhibition motion, so the ordinary rule applied.

Bias and Partiality Must Be Proven

The Court also rejected the petitioner's allegations of bias and partiality. The rudimentary rule is that mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. To be a disqualifying circumstance, the bias must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits based on something other than what the judge learned from participation in the case. Repeated adverse rulings against a litigant, without evidence of bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, are not grounds for disqualification.

Practical Takeaways

• Certiorari is not a substitute for appeal. After a judgment on the merits, errors of judgment—including the denial of a motion for inhibition—should be raised on appeal, not through a Rule 65 petition.
• Rule 137, Section 2 controls. A judge's ruling on his or her own competency cannot be appealed or stayed until after final judgment. The proper time to question it is in the appeal from the main decision.
• Exceptional cases are narrow. Certiorari may be available for inhibition rulings only when the denial happens before judgment and the case clearly warrants it.
• Bias must be proven, not assumed. Allegations of partiality require clear and convincing evidence of an extrajudicial source of bias. Losing a case is not proof of judicial prejudice.
• Avoid forum-shopping. Filing both an appeal and a certiorari petition over the same order risks dismissal and other sanctions.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.