This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-11-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent judge's actuation is quite contrary to the rationale of the Rules on Summary Procedure which was promulgated particularly for the purpose of achieving "an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases."[30] It is not encouraging when it is the judge herself who occasions the delay sought to be prevented by the Rule.[31] Her lackadaisical attitude in sitting on the subject cases for years as well as her failure to immediately render judgment in Civil Case No. 19887 after the defendants therein failed to file their answer, clearly manifested her utter disregard of settled rules and jurisprudence relative to the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, to the detriment and prejudice of the complainants. Verily, respondent judge showed gross ignorance of the law. When the law is so elementary, not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[32] | |||||
|
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)." | |||||