---

Ensuring Fair Trials: Addressing Allegations of Bias and Partiality in Philippine Courts

A litigant who loses an important ruling may suspect that the judge was biased. Philippine law takes that concern seriously, but it also protects judges from unfounded accusations that disrupt the orderly administration of justice. In Cruz-Arevalo v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 217, Quezon City (A.M. No. RTJ-06-2005, July 14, 2006), the Supreme Court examined what it takes to prove bias and partiality — and what does not.

The complaint

Josefina Cruz-Arevalo filed an administrative complaint against Judge Lydia Querubin-Layosa, alleging manifest bias and partiality and ignorance of the law in connection with a civil case. The complainant claimed that the judge declared her co-plaintiff non-suited at pre-trial despite an authorization letter and a special power of attorney; excluded several paragraphs from a witness's affidavit without giving her counsel a chance to comment; and failed to act on her motions for subpoenas, allegedly allowing a defendant to avoid compliance. She asked that the case be re-raffled.

What the judge did

The judge voluntarily inhibited herself from the case to address the complainant's fears, even while stating that the grounds for re-raffle were unfounded and that there was no legal basis for inhibition. In her comment, she explained that the authorization letter was defective because it was not notarized and authenticated, and that the special power of attorney concerned the complainant's authority to receive contributions to the PAG-IBIG Provident Fund — not to represent the co-plaintiff at pre-trial. She added that her rulings on the affidavit were made in open court and reflected in the transcript, and that the subpoena motions were not given due course because the required legal fees were unpaid.

The Court's ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

On the pre-trial issue, the Court held that the judge correctly dismissed the complaint as to the absent plaintiff. The Rules of Court require parties and their counsel to appear personally at pre-trial. While non-appearance may be excused when a duly authorized representative appears, the co-plaintiff's authorization letter and special power of attorney were not authenticated and were not specific as to their purpose. Without a valid representative, his absence made him non-suited.

On the exclusion of portions of the affidavit, the Court explained that evidence formally offered may be admitted or excluded. A party whose evidence is excluded may make an offer of proof — attaching excluded documentary evidence to the record, or stating for the record the witness's name and the substance of the proposed testimony — so the matter can be raised on appeal. The Court also noted that a ruling on an objection must be made immediately after the objection, unless the court needs reasonable time to study the question, but it must always be made during trial. A written order is not required; oral rulings made in open court are reflected in the transcript of stenographic notes.

On the subpoena motions, the judge was correct not to entertain them because the corresponding legal fees had not been paid. The rules require fees for pleadings and applications to be paid in full. That issue became moot when the subpoena was eventually issued after payment.

Proving bias

The Court stressed that the complainant presented no evidence of bias. Mere suspicion that a judge was partial is not enough. Bare allegations of partiality will not overcome the presumption that a judge dispensed justice without fear or favor. A judge's appreciation or misappreciation of the evidence, or the correctness of rulings on objections during trial, is not sufficient to show bias or partiality absent proof of malice. The Court also reiterated that acts of a judge in a judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even if erroneous, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.

Practical takeaways

• Personal appearance at pre-trial matters. A party who cannot attend should send a representative armed with a duly authenticated authorization that specifically covers pre-trial representation — not a document meant for another purpose.
• Objections are ruled on during trial. A judge may rule orally on objections, and those rulings are recorded in the transcript. A separate written order is generally not required.
• Preserve excluded evidence. If evidence is excluded, make an offer of proof so the matter can be reviewed on appeal.
• Pay the required fees. Motions that initiate an application, such as subpoena requests, require full payment of legal fees before the court acts on them.
• Bias must be proven. Adverse or even erroneous rulings, without proof of malice, fraud, or corruption, do not establish partiality.

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