A.M. No. CA-10-49-J January 28, 2010
RAMON C. GONZALES, Complainant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE AMELITA G. TOLENTINO, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ramon C. Gonzales, a member of Alabang Country Club, Inc. (ACCI), filed a civil case for damages after being charged by the ACCI Board with falsifying proxy forms for a 2004 election. He was later disqualified and expelled, leading him to amend his complaint to nullify these actions. The Regional Trial Court ruled in his favor and issued a writ of execution. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and later a writ of preliminary injunction against the execution. Complainant challenged the writ via a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which was dismissed for lack of grave abuse of discretion. On September 29, 2005, complainant filed a Motion for Inhibition against respondent Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, the ponente, alleging the writ was issued against the law. This motion remained unresolved for nearly three years. On August 20, 2008, complainant filed a letter-complaint with the Supreme Court, alleging undue delay in resolving the motion, delay in resolving the cases on the merits, and anomalous furnishing of court resolutions to Atty. Felisberto Verano, who was not a counsel of record but was allegedly the brother of a former congresswoman instrumental in respondent’s appointment. Respondent eventually inhibited herself on October 8, 2008, after the complaint was referred to the Court of Appeals and a reiterative motion was filed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Justice Amelita G. Tolentino is administratively liable for: (1) undue delay in resolving the Motion for Inhibition; (2) delay in resolving the cases on the merits; (3) the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction; and (4) furnishing copies of resolutions to Atty. Felisberto Verano.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent GUILTY of undue delay in rendering an order and imposed a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (₱15,000) with a warning.
1. On the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction: The Court had already dismissed complainant’s petition for certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion in its issuance. The writ was a collective act of the Court of Appeals Ninth Division, and a charge against a single member was inappropriate.
2. On furnishing copies to Atty. Verano: Atty. Verano signed the Petition for Review as collaborating counsel; thus, he was entitled to receive copies of the resolutions. No anomaly was found.
3. On the delay in resolving the cases on the merits: The Court did not find sufficient basis to hold respondent administratively liable for this charge.
4. On the undue delay in resolving the Motion for Inhibition: Respondent’s justification—that she deferred action in deference to the Supreme Court’s pending certiorari petition—was not acceptable. Under Rule 65, a petition for certiorari does not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a TRO or injunction is issued. Even assuming her justification, the motion remained unresolved for over a year after the Supreme Court resolved the certiorari petition (April 11, 2007), and was only acted upon after the administrative complaint and a reiterative motion were filed (October 8, 2008). This constituted undue delay, a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. The appropriate penalty was a fine of ₱15,000.