Short answer. There is one, but it is narrow. Article 207 of the Revised Penal Code punishes a judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice. The word that decides everything is malicious: delay caused by a crowded docket, however painful, is not this crime.
What the law says
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice.
Revised Penal Code, Article 207 — Malicious Delay Of Justice. Read the full provision →
A short article with one demanding word
The whole provision reads: The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice. It is aimed only at judges — not at clerks, sheriffs, prosecutors or the opposing counsel whose postponements may be the real cause of your wait. And it requires malice, which in this setting means deliberate, improperly motivated delay: the case held back to favour a party, to punish one, or to extract something. That is a state of mind, and it has to be proved to the criminal standard. Congestion, illness, an understaffed court, a judge covering two salas, a lost record — none of these is malice, however long the resulting delay.
Why this is rarely the right first move
Filing a criminal complaint against the judge presiding over your own live case is a serious step with real consequences for the case, and it will not by itself produce a decision. It is also the hardest of the available routes to prove. Delay that looks inexplicable from the outside usually has an explanation on the record — a pending incident nobody told you about, an unresolved motion, a transcript never transcribed, an order awaiting service. Before anything else, get a copy of the case record and find out precisely what the case is waiting on and since when. Very often the answer is something that can be moved, and moving it is worth more to you than a complaint.
The remedies that actually shift a stalled case
There are usually three, and they are not criminal. First, within the case itself, a party can file a motion for early resolution, which puts the delay on the record and starts a paper trail. Second, an administrative complaint may be brought against the judge through the disciplinary machinery of the Supreme Court, which supervises all courts and can reprimand, fine, suspend or dismiss — this is the route that in practice produces movement, and it does not require proof of malice, only of unjustified failure to act. Third, where a judge simply refuses to perform a duty the law leaves no discretion about, a higher court can be asked to compel action.
The time limits the Constitution sets
You are not asking for a favour. The Constitution guarantees every person the speedy disposition of cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies, and it fixes outer periods for deciding matters submitted for decision — three months for the lower courts, longer for the appellate courts and the Supreme Court. The clock runs from the date the case or the incident is submitted for resolution, which is a specific point on the record, not the date you filed. Establishing that date is the single most useful thing you can do, because everything else — the motion, the administrative complaint, and any argument about malice — is measured from it. So ask the clerk of court for a certified copy of the record and the list of pending incidents, and keep the receiving copies of everything you have filed.