This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-09-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Judge Sempio Diy, having been a member of the judiciary for several years, should not have any trouble disposing the court's business and resolving motions for reconsideration within the required period. Otherwise, she should formally request this Court for an extension of the deadline to avoid administrative liability. Unfortunately, she failed to do that in these cases. Delay in resolving motions and incidents within the reglementary period of 90 days fixed by the law cannot be excused or condoned.[15] | |||||
|
2008-02-29 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| For the record, respondent judge was fined P20,000.00 in A.M. No. MTJ-05-1583, entitled Arcenas v. Avelino[21] for gross inefficiency. In addition, respondent Judge was fined P20,000.00 in A.M. No. MTJ-05-1606, Office of the Court Administrator v. Avelino,[22] likewise for gross inefficiency. As such, the Court agrees with the OCA that a sterner penalty is in order. | |||||
|
2006-07-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Delay in the disposition and resolution of cases constitutes a serious violation of the parties' constitutional right to speedy disposition of their grievances in court.[17] In Office of the Court Administrator v. Avelino,[18] the Court held that a delay in the disposition of a criminal case for slight physical injuries for five (5) years is a violation of Section 10 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure which directs a judge to decide the case within thirty (30) days from receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same. It must be stressed that the Revised Rule was enacted to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of the cases falling within its coverage. It is therefore not encouraging when it is the judge himself who occasions the delay sought to be prevented by the said Rule.[19] | |||||