Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-01-1649)
Facts:
Rene U. Golangco v. Judge Candido Villanueva, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1649, July 11, 2002, First Division, Davide, Jr., C.J., writing for the Court.The complainant, Rene U. Golangco (RENE), filed administrative charges against respondent Judge Candido Villanueva arising from the trial court proceedings in Civil Case No. 92-3647 (Ma. Lucia Carlos Golangco v. Rene Uy Golangco), a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with ancillary reliefs including custody and a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. On 21 July 1994 the trial judge granted custody pendente lite to Ma. Lucia C. Golangco (LUCIA) and visitation rights to RENE, an order reiterated 26 August 1994; RENE sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, which was denied and his subsequent petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 120381) was dismissed on 17 July 1995 for failure to show grave abuse of discretion.
On 15 August 1995 LUCIA filed a motion for reconsideration of the 21 July 1994 order and urgently prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction, alleging harassment and abuse by RENE; a temporary restraining order followed the next day. After hearing, on 4 October 1995 respondent Judge issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining RENE from harassing the children and related school officials. RENE again assailed that order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals (dismissed for forum-shopping) and elevated the matter to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 124724); the Court in its decision of 22 December 1997 found no forum-shopping and upheld the propriety of the injunction.
RENE filed successive motions to lift the writ of preliminary injunction on 19 May 1997 and 17 September 1999, asserting that the underlying criminal charge for slight physical injuries had been dismissed. On 10 January 2000 respondent Judge denied the earlier motions for lack of an affidavit under oath or an assurance supported by bond that the alleged harassment would not recur. RENE filed another motion on 3 October 2000, submitted a Compliance and affidavit on 20 November 2000, and thereafter repeatedly moved for immediate resolution (motions dated 29 November 2000 and 6 February 2001) and petitioned the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), treating his 16 March 2001 letter as a complaint.
In his Comment of 17 April 2001 respondent Judge explained he had not resolved the motion because the custody issue should be decided in the main case and because an earlier pattern of interlocutory appeals had suspended proceedings and delayed the main decision. The OCA's Report, however, recorded that respondent Judge admitted he did not act on the third motion for that reason and recommended an administrative case and a P1,000 fine. The Court docketed RENE's letter-complaint as a regular administrative matter on 3 September 2001. On 26 November 2001 respondent Judge submitted his main-case decision dated 16 November 2001, which denied RENE's motion to lift and made permanent the writ of injunction.
The Court invoked Section 15, Paragraph 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, Supreme Court Circular No. 13 (1 July 1987), and provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct directing judges to decide matters promptly. It cited prior jurisprudence holding that the duty to promptly dispose of cases extends to interlocutory matters (e.g., Hilario v. Concepcion, De Vera v. Layague) and ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Candido Villanueva violate the duty to promptly resolve matters by failing to act on Rene Golangco’s motion to lift the writ of preliminary injunction within the reglementary period under the Constitution, Supreme Court directives, and the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- If so, what administrative sanction is ap...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)