Gonzales v. Tolentino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ramon C. Gonzales (complainant), a member of Alabang Country Club, Inc. (ACCI), was charged with falsifying proxy forms for the 2004 election. He filed a civil case for damages against ACCI, later amending it to include the Board members and seeking the nullification of his disqualification and expulsion from the club. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in his favor, allowing him to resume his rights as a member. Procedural History: The defendants in the civil case filed a petition for review with application for TRO and/or preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 89358. The CA issued a TRO, which was later denied after complainant alleged voluntary execution of the RTC decision. Subsequently, the CA Ninth Division issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Complainant challenged this issuance before the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari, which was dismissed for failure to show grave abuse of discretion. Complainant also filed a motion for inhibition against the ponente, Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, which remained unacted upon for a considerable period. The Petition: Complainant filed a letter-complaint before the Supreme Court alleging undue delay in the resolution of his motion for inhibition and the main cases by respondent Justice Tolentino. He also questioned the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction, the furnishing of resolutions to Atty. Felisberto Verano who was not a counsel of record, and the overall delay in resolving the cases on the merits, suspecting a favor to Atty. Verano due to Justice Tolentino's alleged debt of gratitude to his sister, a former Congresswoman. He also filed an urgent verified motion reiterating his motion for inhibition.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Justice Amelita G. Tolentino committed undue delay in resolving the complainant's Motion for Inhibition. Whether the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was attended with grave abuse of discretion. Whether furnishing resolutions to Atty. Felisberto Verano was anomalous. Whether there was undue delay in the resolution of the cases on the merits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Justice Amelita G. Tolentino GUILTY of undue delay in rendering an order. She was FINED Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) with a WARNING that commission of the same or similar infraction shall be faulted strictly. The Court noted that the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was not attended with grave abuse of discretion and that furnishing resolutions to Atty. Verano was justified as he signed as collaborating counsel.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of undue delay in resolving the Motion for Inhibition: The Court found that respondent Justice Tolentino unduly delayed the resolution of the complainant's Motion for Inhibition. Although the motion was filed on September 29, 2005, it was only resolved on October 8, 2008, after the complainant filed a letter-complaint and a reiterative motion for inhibition. The justification that she deferred action in deference to the Supreme Court's resolution of the certiorari petition was found unconvincing, as a certiorari petition does not automatically interrupt the course of the principal case unless a TRO or injunction is issued. Even crediting the justification, the delay from April 11, 2007 (when the SC resolved the certiorari petition) to October 8, 2008, was still considered undue. On the issue of the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction: The Court reiterated its finding in the dismissed certiorari petition that the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction by the Court of Appeals was not attended with grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the Court of Appeals is a collegiate court, and its decisions are collective judgments. Therefore, charging a single member of a division for a collective decision is inappropriate. On the issue of furnishing resolutions to Atty. Felisberto Verano: The Court found that Atty. Verano was entitled to receive copies of the resolutions because he signed the Petition for Review in CA-G.R. SP No. 89358 as collaborating counsel. Thus, furnishing him with copies was not anomalous. On the issue of undue delay in the resolution of the cases on the merits: While the complaint mentioned delay in resolving the cases on the merits, the Court focused its administrative finding on the delay in resolving the motion for inhibition, which was clearly established and fell under the definition of undue delay as a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. The Court did not make a separate finding on the delay in resolving the main cases on the merits, but the overall context of the delay in resolving the motion for inhibition underscored the administrative lapse.
Main Doctrine
Justices and judges are mandated to decide or resolve cases and matters within the periods prescribed by the Constitution and the Rules of Court. Undue delay in resolving motions, even when a petition for certiorari is pending before a higher court, can constitute a less serious administrative offense, warranting a fine. Furthermore, the filing of a petition for certiorari does not automatically stay the proceedings in the lower court unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction is issued.