On the issue of partiality and manifest bias, the rule is that mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. Clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge is required.

On the issue of partiality and manifest bias, the rule is that mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. Clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge is required.  The burden to prove that respondent Judge committed the acts complained of rest on the complainant.  It is complainant's asseveration that respondent Judge was protecting the defendants who are rich and influential; that some of them are townmates of the respondent judge; and they were sometimes seen together. These allegations remain as mere allegations without any evidence to support them. Complainant averred that her sister and relatives saw the respondent Judge with the defendants talking and eating in a restaurant.  However, said sister and relatives were not presented to testify on that allegation.  Mere allegation of partiality and bias without more cannot discharge the burden bestowed upon the complainant to prove respondent Judge's partiality and bias. Charges against any member of the judiciary must be supported at least by substantial evidence.  Applying the foregoing principles to this case, the undersigned finds that the charges of the complainant against respondent Judge for partiality and bias failed to measure up to the yardstick of substantial evidence.

[ A.M. No. MTJ-06-1631 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1744-MTJ), September 30, 2008 ]

FENINA R. SANTOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ERASTO D. TANCIONGCO, RESPONDENT.