Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 283 views

    Hurtado v. Judalena

    Uploaded by

    dondz
    Judge Arsenio Gonong issued an ex-parte order directing a writ of preliminary injunction in a land dispute case between Isabel Judalena and Palmarin Hurtado, despite being closely related to Judalena. Gonong later disqualified himself from the case due to this close relationship. Hurtado filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, which Gonong denied. The Supreme Court ruled that Gonong acted improperly by taking on the case in the first place given his close familial relationship with Judalena, as judges are prohibited from handling cases of relatives under the Rules of Court. Gonong's actions undermined the impartiality of the judiciary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hurtado v. Judalena

    Uploaded by

    dondz
    283 views2 pages
    Judge Arsenio Gonong issued an ex-parte order directing a writ of preliminary injunction in a land dispute case between Isabel Judalena and Palmarin Hurtado, despite being closely related to Judalena. Gonong later disqualified himself from the case due to this close relationship. Hurtado filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, which Gonong denied. The Supreme Court ruled that Gonong acted improperly by taking on the case in the first place given his close familial relationship with Judalena, as judges are prohibited from handling cases of relatives under the Rules of Court. Gonong's actions undermined the impartiality of the judiciary.

    Original Description:

    Ethics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Arsenio Gonong issued an ex-parte order directing a writ of preliminary injunction in a land dispute case between Isabel Judalena and Palmarin Hurtado, despite being closely related to Judalena. Gonong later disqualified himself from the case due to this close relationship. Hurtado filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, which Gonong denied. The Supreme Court ruled that Gonong acted improperly by taking on the case in the first place given his close familial relationship with Judalena, as judges are prohibited from handling cases of relatives under the Rules of Court. Gonong's actions undermined the impartiality of the judiciary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    283 views2 pages

    Hurtado v. Judalena

    Uploaded by

    dondz
    Judge Arsenio Gonong issued an ex-parte order directing a writ of preliminary injunction in a land dispute case between Isabel Judalena and Palmarin Hurtado, despite being closely related to Judalena. Gonong later disqualified himself from the case due to this close relationship. Hurtado filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, which Gonong denied. The Supreme Court ruled that Gonong acted improperly by taking on the case in the first place given his close familial relationship with Judalena, as judges are prohibited from handling cases of relatives under the Rules of Court. Gonong's actions undermined the impartiality of the judiciary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Hurtado vs Judalena

    Facts: Isabel G. Judalena had sold a portion, containing an area of 75


    square meters of her parcel of land to Palmarin Q. Hurtado, with the
    condition that the latter shall cause a subdivision survey of the portion
    sold in order to segregate said portion from the bigger portion, after
    which the said Palmarin Hurtado shall construct a concrete fence
    between the two lots. Hurtado, however, violated their agreement.
    Pursuant to this, Judalena prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction to
    restrain Hurtado.
    Respondent Judge Arsenio Gonong, his close relationship with
    Judalena notwithstanding, and despite the prohibition imposed by
    Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, issued an order, exparte. directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
    Respondent judge issued an order voluntarily disqualifying
    himself from hearing the case in view of his close relationship with the
    plaintiff therein and directed the transmittal of the records of the case
    to the incumbent Executive Judge for proper assignment to the other
    judges of the court.
    Hurtado filed a motion for the dissolution of the writ of
    preliminary injunction in order to preserve the status quo until the
    designation of another judge to try the case, with a prayer that the
    respondent judge hear the motion to give him an opportunity to rectify
    the mistake error he had committed in taking cognizance of the case
    and in granting, ex-parte, the issuance of the writ of preliminary
    injunction.
    Respondent judge, however, denied the motion.
    Hence, the instant petition.
    Issue: Whether or not Judge Gonong acted unlike of a judge
    Held: Yes. Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court
    enumerates without ambiguity the cases in which any judge or judicial
    officer is disqualified from acting as such. The said section, in no
    uncertain terms, expressly prohibits a judge or judicial officer from
    sitting in a case where he is related to either party within the sixth
    degree of consanguity or affinity. This is mandatory.
    In the case at bar, it is not denied that the respondent judge is
    the brother of the respondent Isabel G. Judalena and their close
    relationship notwithstanding, and despite the prohibition mentioned
    above, the respondent judge took cognizance of the case and issued

    the controversial order directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary


    injunction, after which he inhibited himself from sitting on the case for
    the same reasons. Such action, to our mind, is reprehensible as it
    erodes the all important confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

    You might also like