This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-04-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| No less than the 1987 Constitution requires that cases at the trial court level be resolved within three months from the date they are submitted for decision. Undue delay cannot be countenanced at a time when the clogging of the court dockets is still the bane of the judiciary.[25] Failure to decide/resolve cases within the period prescribed by law constitutes gross inefficiency which is a ground for an administrative sanction against the defaulting judge.[26] | |||||
|
2004-09-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Under Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct,[22] judges are required to dispose of the court's business promptly and to act, one way or the other, on pending cases within the prescribed period therefor.[23] Indeed, the failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period therefor constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate.[24] Undue delay cannot be countenanced at a time when the clogging of the court dockets is still the bane of the judiciary.[25] Delay results in undermining the people's faith in the judiciary and from whom the prompt hearing of their supplications is anticipated and expected, and reinforces in the mind of the litigants the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly.[26] While this Court remains sympathetic to the plight of judges who are, more often than not, beset with heavy caseloads, such fact is not a sufficient justification to avoid administrative sanction, for they can always ask for extensions of time within which to decide cases should they find themselves unable to comply with the ninety-day requirement.[27] In fact, even grave illness and personal tragedies intervening in the performance of the judge's duty will not excuse him from informing the Court of his inability to seasonably decide the cases.[28] As aptly observed by the Court Administrator, while the respondent may have submitted copies of his decisions and his resolutions on all pending incidents in his sala, in compliance with the Court's directive, he already violated the mandate of Section 15(1) of the Constitution requiring judges to resolve cases within ninety (90) days from the time they are submitted for decision, as well as Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[29] | |||||