A.M. No. RTJ-99-1433. June 26, 2000. GARY P. ROSAURO, representing GAUDIOSO GARY A. ROSAURO, JR. and JULIUS ALEXIS A. ROSAURO, complainant, vs. JUDGE WENCESLAO R. VILLANUEVA, JR., Branch 3, Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Gary P. Rosauro, representing the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 9078 for Specific Performance, charged Judge Wenceslao R. Villanueva, Jr. with Gross Inefficiency, Grave Abuse of Discretion, and Ignorance of the Law. The case stemmed from a compromise agreement, approved by the court in a November 1995 decision, wherein the defendant obligated himself to deliver a certificate of title to the plaintiffs. Due to the defendant’s non-compliance, the plaintiffs filed a motion for execution in early 1996. The complainant alleged that the respondent judge unduly delayed the issuance of the writ of execution and the resolution of a subsequent motion for contempt by repeatedly granting postponements at the defendant’s instance, despite the complainant’s strong oppositions. This delay prevented the plaintiffs from obtaining possession of the property.
The respondent judge, in his comment, denied bias and attributed the delays to a pending petition before the Court of Appeals filed by a third party and to the successive motions filed by the complainant himself. He claimed that all motions, except the contempt charge, had been acted upon and that the case was eventually re-raffled after he granted the complainant’s motion for inhibition in May 1997.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Wenceslao R. Villanueva, Jr. is administratively liable for undue delay in the execution of a final judgment and for conduct giving an appearance of partiality.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found merit in the complainant’s allegations. A judgment based on a compromise agreement is immediately final and executory. Once a judgment becomes final, the issuance of a writ of execution is a ministerial duty of the court. The Court held that the respondent judge failed in this duty by unnecessarily delaying the proceedings. The records showed no cogent reason for setting a simple motion for execution for hearing weeks later and for repeatedly postponing it, especially when such postponements were opposed by the prevailing party and appeared to solely accommodate the defendant.
This conduct violated Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that judges dispose of court business promptly. The delay eroded public confidence in the judiciary, creating an appearance of partiality in favor of the defendant. While a judge must be impartial, his actions must also inspire belief in that impartiality. The Court emphasized that justice delayed is justice denied. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) on Judge Villanueva, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.