In Rene U. Golangco v. Judge Candido Villanueva, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liability of a judge for failing to promptly resolve a pending motion. The Court ruled that judges must act on motions within the prescribed period, regardless of their assessment of the motion’s merits or potential future actions by the parties. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to the timely administration of justice and the protection of litigants’ rights to a speedy resolution of their concerns.

Justice Delayed? A Judge’s Unresolved Motion and a Father’s Plea

The case stemmed from a protracted legal battle between Rene Golangco and Ma. Lucia Carlos Golangco concerning the nullity of their marriage and the custody of their children. During the proceedings, Rene filed multiple motions to lift a writ of preliminary injunction that restricted his contact with his children. Despite these motions and subsequent requests for resolution, Judge Candido Villanueva failed to act on Rene’s plea for over a year, citing a belief that the matter would be better resolved in the main decision. This inaction prompted Rene to file an administrative complaint, alleging undue delay and a violation of his rights.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Judge Villanueva’s delay in resolving Rene’s motion to lift the writ of preliminary injunction constituted gross inefficiency and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court emphasized the constitutional mandate for the prompt resolution of cases and matters, as enshrined in Section 15, Paragraph 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which states that trial courts must decide or resolve cases within three months from the date of submission. This mandate is reinforced by Supreme Court Circular No. 13, which directs judges to strictly adhere to these prescribed periods.

The Court also highlighted the relevant provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 1.02, Canon 1, requires judges to administer justice impartially and without delay. Similarly, Rule 3.05, Canon 3, mandates judges to dispose of court business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. The Supreme Court has consistently held that these directives apply not only to entire cases but also to individual motions and interlocutory matters pending before a judge. The failure to promptly resolve such matters constitutes a violation of judicial norms and may warrant administrative sanctions.

In its analysis, the Court dismissed Judge Villanueva’s justification for the delay, finding it unacceptable to base inaction on speculation about potential future actions by the parties. The Court stated that Judge Villanueva should have simply denied the motion, providing his reasoning that the custody issue would be addressed in the main case decision. The Supreme Court has previously stated that:

Unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate.

The Court acknowledged the emotional context of the case, recognizing that Judge Villanueva was caught in the crossfire of a contentious custody battle. However, the Court emphasized that this did not excuse the failure to act on Rene’s motion within a reasonable time. The Court underscored the potential harm caused by the delay, noting that the writ of preliminary injunction deprived Rene of visitation rights and negatively impacted his relationship with his children.

The Supreme Court, citing its earlier decision in Hilario v. Concepcion, 327 SCRA 96, 103 [2002]; De Vera v. Layague, 341 SCRA 67, 77 [2000], reiterated that the mandate to promptly dispose of cases or matters applies also to motions or interlocutory matters or incidents pending before a magistrate. Furthermore, the Supreme Court referenced Canson v. Garchitorena, 311 SCRA 268 [1999], emphasizing that unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate.

In the decision, the Supreme Court referenced its decision in the first administrative case, A.M. No. RTJ- 96-1355, filed by RENE against herein respondent Judge in connection with Civil Case No. 92-3647. The court previously observed that the respondent judge was indeed “caught in the cross-fire” in this “emotionally-charged drama between a husband and a wife fighting for the custody of their children,” and yet he remained patient to resolve the conflict.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Judge Villanueva administratively liable for his failure to act promptly on Rene’s motion. While acknowledging the pressures faced by judges, the Court reiterated the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines and fulfilling the duty to resolve all matters submitted for determination without undue delay. This ruling serves as a reminder to judges of their responsibility to ensure the efficient administration of justice and to protect the rights of litigants to a timely resolution of their cases.

The Supreme Court held that:

respondent Judge Candido Villanueva is hereby ADMONISHED for his failure to act within the reglementary period on the motion of Rene Golangco for the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction. He is DIRECTED to promptly dispose of all matters submitted to him for resolution in all cases before him, with a WARNING that the commission in the future of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Judge Villanueva’s delay in resolving Rene Golangco’s motion to lift the writ of preliminary injunction constituted gross inefficiency and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
What was the basis for Rene Golangco’s complaint?	Rene Golangco filed an administrative complaint due to Judge Villanueva’s inaction on his motion to lift the writ of preliminary injunction, which he claimed deprived him of his visitation rights and negatively impacted his relationship with his children.
What justification did Judge Villanueva provide for the delay?	Judge Villanueva claimed that he delayed resolving the motion because he believed the matter of custody would be better resolved in the main decision of the nullity of marriage case.
What is the constitutional mandate regarding the resolution of cases?	Section 15, Paragraph 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates that trial courts must decide or resolve cases within three months from the date of submission for determination.
What does the Code of Judicial Conduct say about the prompt disposition of cases?	The Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to administer justice impartially and without delay (Rule 1.02, Canon 1) and to dispose of court business promptly and decide cases within the required periods (Rule 3.05, Canon 3).
Did the Supreme Court find Judge Villanueva liable?	Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Villanueva administratively liable for his failure to act promptly on Rene Golangco’s motion.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court admonished Judge Villanueva for his failure to act within the reglementary period and directed him to promptly dispose of all matters submitted to him for resolution.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling emphasizes the importance of judicial efficiency and the prompt resolution of cases to ensure the fair and timely administration of justice.

This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that all litigants receive timely justice. By holding judges accountable for delays in resolving pending matters, the Supreme Court reinforces the importance of efficiency and diligence in the administration of justice. This decision serves as a valuable reminder to judges of their duty to act promptly and protect the rights of all parties involved in legal proceedings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RENE U. GOLANGCO v. JUDGE CANDIDO VILLANUEVA, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1649, July 11, 2002