G.R. No. RTJ-96-1355 September 4, 1997
RENE UY GOLANGCO, complainant, vs. JUDGE CANDIDO P. VILLANUEVA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rene Uy Golangco filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Candido P. Villanueva for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The case stemmed from Civil Case No. 92-3647, a petition for annulment of marriage filed by complainant’s estranged wife, Ma. Lucia C. Golangco, which included a prayer for custody pendente lite of their two minor children. On July 21, 1994, respondent Judge issued an order awarding custody pendente lite to Mrs. Golangco but granting complainant rights of visitation and reasonable access. Complainant challenged this and a subsequent August 26, 1994 order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals and later the Supreme Court, but both petitions were denied. Meanwhile, Mrs. Golangco filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 21, 1994 order with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. Respondent Judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on August 16, 1995, and after its expiration, issued a second TRO on September 14, 1995, both enjoining complainant from harassing or threatening the children and their school officials. Respondent also designated a court psychiatrist, Dr. Cecilia C. Villegas, to conduct a psychological evaluation of the children. Complainant alleged multiple acts of bad faith, bias, partiality, abuse of authority, negligence, and ignorance of the law by respondent Judge, including: refusing to implement the custody orders; failing to act on motions to cite Mrs. Golangco in contempt; lifting a Supreme Court-sustained hold departure order; issuing a second TRO; decreeing division of proceeds from a car sale absent a final annulment order; ignoring a motion to implement the psychiatrist’s recommendation; issuing a writ of preliminary injunction before termination of complainant’s evidence; and failing to implement the order for psychological examination. Complainant also accused respondent of “witness tampering.” Respondent Judge defended his actions, stating the custody orders were under judicial challenge, the writ of preliminary injunction was based on evidence, and the psychological evaluation issue had become moot.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Candido P. Villanueva is administratively liable for grave abuse of authority, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice based on the allegations in the complaint.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The OCA found respondent liable for: (1) malfeasance for issuing two restraining orders in violation of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, as amended by B.P. Blg. 224, which provides that a TRO has a non-extendible lifetime of twenty days and automatically expires thereafter; and (2) gross ignorance of the law for lifting a hold-departure order that had been sustained by the Supreme Court, with no extant reason for setting it aside. The OCA recommended the dismissal of other charges for lack of factual or legal basis, including those for manifest bias, grave abuse of authority, precipitate hearing, and witness tampering. Regarding the allegation that respondent failed to implement the custody orders due to pending certiorari petitions, the Court found that while a pending certiorari alone does not suspend implementation absent an injunctive writ, the circumstances of the emotionally-charged custody battle justified respondent’s caution. The Supreme Court concurred with the OCA’s recommended penalty of CENSURE. Respondent Judge Candido P. Villanueva was CENSURED and warned that future similar acts would be dealt with more severely.