SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-45121 and L-45122. June 16, 1978.]
ROSARIO P. ARCEO, Petitioner, v. HON. NARCISO A. AQUINO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch XIV at Rosales, and ANICETO SANDOVAL, Respondents.
SYNOPSIS
Pending resolution of petitions seeking to disqualify respondent judge from sitting in two cases, his application for disability retirement was approved. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions inasmuch as this supervening fact had rendered the cases moot and academic.
SYLLABUS
1. ACTIONS; MOOT AND ACADEMIC; DISMISSAL. — A petition seeking to disqualify a judge from sitting in a case is dismissed for being moot and academic, where pending resolution of said petition, the judge’s application for disability retirement is approved.
R E S O L U T I O N
AQUINO, J.:
In Special Proceeding No. 116-R, "Intestate Estate of Honorato L. Arceo", and Civil Case No. 283-R, "Rosario P. Arceo v. Aniceto Sandoval", both of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Rosales Branch XIV, Rosario P. Arceo, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Honorato Arceo, filed a pleading dated September 24, 1976, seeking to disqualify respondent Judge from sitting in the two cases on the ground that on some occasions he consorted with Aniceto Sandoval, a creditor in the intestate proceeding and the defendant in the other case, and that the two are members of the Lions Club.
That motion or recusation was denied by respondent Judge in his order also dated September 24, 1976. Mrs. Arceo filed a motion for reconsideration. She stressed in her motion that due to the close and intimate personal relationship between Sandoval and respondent Judge, the latter would not be able to hear the said cases with the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge." chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Respondent Judge denied the motion for reconsideration. On November 29, 1976 Mrs. Arceo filed the instant petitions for certiorari and prohibition praying that respondent Judge be prohibited from hearing the two above-mentioned cases.
Respondent Judge and Sandoval were required to comment on the petitions. After the submission of respondents’ comments, the petitions were given due course. The parties filed their respective memoranda.
These two cases were pending decision when the application of respondent Judge for disability retirement was approved effective on February 23, 1978 (See Resolution of that date in Administrative Matter No. 692-Ret.).
Inasmuch as that supervening fact had rendered these two cases moot and academic, the same are dismissed and considered closed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Actg. C J.), Barredo, Antonio and Santos, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, Jr., is on leave.
That motion or recusation was denied by respondent Judge in his order also dated September 24, 1976. Mrs. Arceo filed a motion for reconsideration. She stressed in her motion that due to the close and intimate personal relationship between Sandoval and respondent Judge, the latter would not be able to hear the said cases with the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge." chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Respondent Judge denied the motion for reconsideration. On November 29, 1976 Mrs. Arceo filed the instant petitions for certiorari and prohibition praying that respondent Judge be prohibited from hearing the two above-mentioned cases.
Respondent Judge and Sandoval were required to comment on the petitions. After the submission of respondents’ comments, the petitions were given due course. The parties filed their respective memoranda.
These two cases were pending decision when the application of respondent Judge for disability retirement was approved effective on February 23, 1978 (See Resolution of that date in Administrative Matter No. 692-Ret.).
Inasmuch as that supervening fact had rendered these two cases moot and academic, the same are dismissed and considered closed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Actg. C J.), Barredo, Antonio and Santos, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, Jr., is on leave.
