A.M. No. RTJ-09-2211; August 12, 2010
Evangeline Vera Cruz, Complainant, vs. Judge Winston M. Villegas, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Evangeline Vera Cruz filed an administrative complaint against Judge Winston M. Villegas of the RTC, Branch 43, Tanjay City, Negros Oriental. She charged him with undue delay in rendering a decision or order, fraternizing with a litigant, and violating the Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to her annulment case (Civil Case No. 192). She alleged that upon checking the status of her case, which had not moved for over a year, she discovered the case folder was at the judge’s residence. She was shocked to find that the judge and Dra. Carmelita Vera Cruz, a co-defendant in the case, were practically neighbors, with their houses in the same barangay separated only by the Archbishop’s palace. She expressed fear that the delay benefited the other party.
In his comment, Judge Villegas denied the allegations of fraternization, stating their houses were about 250 meters apart. He explained the delay by citing a heavy caseload, power interruptions in the court, and noted that a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant (based on a prior annulment decree) had already been denied as a prohibited pleading. The complainant, in reply, insisted on the proximity of the residences and lamented the lack of information on her case’s status, pleading for its transfer to Manila.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Winston M. Villegas is administratively liable for the charges against him.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Villegas guilty of undue delay but dismissed the other charges. On the charge of undue delay, the Court emphasized the constitutional and statutory mandate to decide cases and resolve matters within specified periods. The record showed Civil Case No. 192, filed in March 2003, remained at the pre-trial stage nearly five years later, with the last hearing held in July 2006. The judge’s explanations—heavy caseload and power issues—were deemed insufficient to justify the inordinate delay. Undue delay is a less serious charge under the Rules of Court.
Considering it was his first offense of this nature, the Court imposed a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) instead of suspension, with a stern warning. The charges of fraternizing with a litigant and violating the Code of Judicial Conduct were dismissed for lack of substantial evidence, as mere proximity of residences does not, by itself, prove improper fraternization or bias. The complainant’s petition for a change of venue was also denied, as her apprehensions were not sufficiently compelling to warrant such action.