This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-01-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Again, we reiterate the principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities.[19] In this area, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, as the ponente assigned to the cases submitted for decision/resolution long ago, some as neglect of duty and inefficiency.[20] | |||||
|
2003-01-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| True, the work of a Presiding Justice and Division Chairman requires meticulous attention to details. To whom much is given, much is expected and required. PJ Garchitorena cannot recuse himself from the task of preparing decisions and resolutions by pointing out that he was pre-occupied with other matters. Decision-making is the primordial duty of a member of the bench.[39] No other matter can be more important than decision-making, certainly, not reviewing vouchers and attending to incoming mail. We stress that decision-making is the most important duty of a member of the bench.[40] PJ Garchitorena never disputed that from December 21, 2000 to November 16, 2001, or for almost one year, not one case was decided/resolved by the Presiding Justice himself.[41] In this area, PJ Garchitorena's performance has been dismal; he has been remiss to the point of plain inefficiency, if not incompetence. He was not idle. He attended to other matters, and more, such as review of vouchers, attending to incoming mail and conferring with different persons. The clerk of court or an executive assistant could very well attend to these matters. He wanted to personally attend to the vouchers of expenses of the other justices and to his incoming mail. These are not judicial functions. He took pride in his dispositions of incidental matters, in forty-four (44) cases in fourteen (14) months (average: 3 cases a month), such as to determine probable cause (12 cases), act on demurrers to evidence (2 cases), and motions to withdraw information (30 cases). We examined the papers on these cases. They were routine minutes that the clerk of court prepared and on which he simply gave his approval and affixed his signature. Moreover, these were set on standard forms (de cajon), that the clerk of court accomplished. | |||||
|
2002-01-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Again, we reiterate the principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities.[19] In this area, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, as the ponente assigned to the cases submitted for decision/resolution long ago, some as neglect of duty and inefficiency.[20] | |||||
|
2002-01-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| True, the work of a Presiding Justice and Division Chairman requires meticulous attention to details. To whom much is given, much is expected and required. PJ Garchitorena cannot recuse himself from the task of preparing decisions and resolutions by pointing out that he was pre-occupied with other matters. Decision-making is the primordial duty of a member of the bench.[39] No other matter can be more important than decision-making, certainly, not reviewing vouchers and attending to incoming mail. We stress that decision-making is the most important duty of a member of the bench.[40] PJ Garchitorena never disputed that from December 21, 2000 to November 16, 2001, or for almost one year, not one case was decided/resolved by the Presiding Justice himself.[41] In this area, PJ Garchitorena's performance has been dismal; he has been remiss to the point of plain inefficiency, if not incompetence. He was not idle. He attended to other matters, and more, such as review of vouchers, attending to incoming mail and conferring with different persons. The clerk of court or an executive assistant could very well attend to these matters. He wanted to personally attend to the vouchers of expenses of the other justices and to his incoming mail. These are not judicial functions. He took pride in his dispositions of incidental matters, in forty-four (44) cases in fourteen (14) months (average: 3 cases a month), such as to determine probable cause (12 cases), act on demurrers to evidence (2 cases), and motions to withdraw information (30 cases). We examined the papers on these cases. They were routine minutes that the clerk of court prepared and on which he simply gave his approval and affixed his signature. Moreover, these were set on standard forms (de cajon), that the clerk of court accomplished. | |||||
|
2001-11-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We reiterate the admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000:[59] "This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Decision making is the primordial and most important duty of the member of the bench.[60] Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency[61] that warrants disciplinary sanction, including fine,[62] suspension[63] and even dismissal.[64] The rule particularly applies to justices of the Sandiganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bring it into disrepute.[65] Delays cannot be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the anti-graft court, the showcase of the nation's determination to succeed in its war against graft (underscoring ours)." | |||||
|
2001-11-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Administrative sanctions must be imposed. "Mora reprobatur in lege."[74] Again, we reiterate the principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities.[75] In this area, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, as the ponente assigned to the cases submitted for decision/resolution long ago, some as far back as more than ten (10) years ago, has been remiss constituting gross neglect of duty and inefficiency.[76] As we said in Canson,[77] unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a case amounts to a denial of justice, bringing the Sandiganbayan into disrepute, eroding the public faith and confidence in the judiciary.[78] | |||||