Dimo Realty & Development, Inc. and Luz Dizon vs.

Leonardo Dimaculangan
GR 130991. March 11, 2004

Nature of the case: Petition for review on certiorari of CA decision.

SC decision: Denied. CA decision is affirmed.

Legal Doctrine:
Canon 3, New Code of Judicial Conduct:
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not
only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision to made.

Section 1 of the same:

Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.

Whether judges should inhibit themselves from a case rests on their own sound discretion. Bias
and prejudice, to be considered valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of judges, must be proved
with clear and convincing evidence. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice.

Facts:
Dimaculangan filed with RTC a complaint for specific performance against Dimo Realty and
spouses Gregorio and Luz Dizon. It alleged that petitioners Dizon spouses and Dimo Realty engaged
the services of respondent Dimaculangan as geodetic surveyor to subdivide 2 parcels of land in
Batangas. Petitioners agreed to pay 1 subdivision lot and P9,200. After Dimaculangan’s work,
petitioners paid him P9,200 and delivered possession of the lot. However, despite Dimaculangan’s
demands, petitioners failed to deliver the title of the lot, causing him to file an RTC complaint for
specific performance and damages.

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss based on the grounds that: (1) the cause of action
prescribed or barred by statute of limitations, and (2) venue was improperly laid since trial court has no
jurisdiction over the subject property in Batangas; (3) the claim is unenforceable under the provisions
of the statute of frauds; and (4) the complaint failed to state a sufficient cause of action.

RTC dismissed the complaint for improper venue.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration with motion for inhibition.

RTC granted the motion for inhibition. The case was re-raffled to Branch 101 of RTC-Quezon
City. This Branch granted respondent’s motion for reconsideration, finding that the complaint
allegations show that it is for specific performance and therefore a personal action, and that the proper
the proper venue of the action is the court in Quezon City where plaintiff resides.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration.

Meanwhile, Dimo Realty filed with MTC at Batangas 2 complaints for unlawful detainer and
forcible entry against Matibag, and Dela Roca spouses. This prompted respondent to file with RTC a
motion for issuance of TRO and preliminary injunction against Dimo Realty and MTC of Rosario,
Batangas. RTC issued a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining petitioner and MTC from
proceeding with the civil cases.
 Petitioners filed with RTC a motion to lift the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction and
an urgent motion for inhibition. Denied.

Petitioners filed consolidated motions for reconsideration. Denied.

Petitioners filed with CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus seeking to nullify
RTC order gainting respondent’s motion for reconsideration, among others; and to prohibit trial court
from hearing civil case, among others.

CA nullified RTC orders, and respondent judge ordered to desist from proceeding with the civil
case. It stated that respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering issuance of preliminary
injunction.

Issue:
Whether or not CA erred in holding that respondent’s complaint is a personal action.
Whether or not CA erred in sustaining trial court’s order denying petitioners’ motion for
inhibition.

Ruling:
No. The complaint is not a real action, but a personal action.

“SECTION 1. Venue of real actions.—Actions affecting title to or possession of real

property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is
situated.
X x x.
SECTION 2. Venue of personal actions.—All other actions may be commenced and tried
where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any
of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he
may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.”

CA is correct in holding that proper venue is in RTC-QC since respondent resides in QC.

As to whether or not there had been bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge:

Here, petitioners merely alleged the arbitrary issuance of a temporary restraining order
without however showing bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge. In fact, the Court of
Appeals held that “such error of the respondent judge does not necessarily warrant his inhibition
in the case.”