Adverse rulings on a case alone do not constitute bias or prejudice that would warrant the inhibition of a judge, a regional trial court (RTC) judge in Nueva Vizcaya declared.

In an order denying the plea for his inhibition, Judge Paul R. Attolba Jr. of RTC Branch 30 in Bayombong town said that inhibition of judges is covered by Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and judges may inhibit themselves “only for just and valid reasons.”

Attolba’s order was issued in the case filed by Fredo Mina in behalf of Woggle Corporation against Florentino Daynos, Jun Roduta, and others who protested the firm’s mining explorations in five barangays (villages) in Dupax del Norte in Nueva Vizcaya.

Case records show that Woggle has Exploration Permit No. 00030-II from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued last Aug. 4, 2025 and covers 3,101.11 hectares in the five barangays.

When Judge Attolba’s orders against the holding of protests and erection of barricades within the mining explorations were not complied with, he directed the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Nueva Vizcaya to arrest any person who will obstruct or prevent the government-approved mining exploration activities.

Daynos and his group of protesters sought the inhibition of Judge Attolba from handling the case filed by Woggle.

They claimed that two of Woggle’s lawyers and Judge Attolba are members of Masonry, a fraternal organization, and insinuated that the judge may not be able to hand down an unbiased ruling.

In denying the inhibition last Dec. 15, Attolba said: “The grounds relied by the defendants (Daynos and his group) solely arose from their dissatisfaction with the rulings previously issued by the court which were made in the exercise of judicial discretion after taking due consideration of the submissions made by the parties and the applicable laws.”

The judge pointed out that membership in the same civic or fraternal organization, “standing alone, does not constitute a ground for inhibition.”

“Courts are presumed to act with impartiality and such cannot be overturned by mere association or speculation,” he stressed.

He added: “The court further stresses that a motion for inhibition cannot be used as remedy against unfavorable rulings nor a means to delay further proceedings. Parties aggrieved by judicial rulings must avail themselves of the remedies provided by law.”