Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DOLORES IMBANG v. JUDGE DEOGRACIAS K. DEL ROSARIO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AM No. MTJ-08-1721 2008-10-24	MICHAEL GAMALIEL PLATA v. JUDGE LIZABETH G. TORRES BRION, J.
The respondent Judge's liability for repeatedly disregarding the orders of this Court is, however, another matter. She showed disrespect, if not actual contempt of this Court, by her extended indifference to the resolutions requiring her to comment on the accusations against her. A resolution of this Court requiring that specific acts be done or undertaken with respect to the performance of judicial duties, is not a mere request but a directive that should be complied with promptly and completely. It took the respondent Judge the whole of one year (from November 2005 to November 2006) to respond to our "show cause" order. This kind of resistance to our orders betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also a direct disrespect and indifference to this Court that we cannot tolerate.[5] In Martinez v. Zoleta,[6] we held:The resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Moreover, the Court should not and will not tolerate future indifference of respondents and to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaints.
	AM No. MTJ-07-1682 2008-06-19	ESTER F. BARBERO v. JUDGE CESAR M. DUMLAO PER CURIAM
Court resolutions directing judges to comment on administrative complaints are not mere requests. Judges are duty-bound to obey them fully and promptly.[19] In refusing to comment on the affidavit-complaint for almost five years and despite several directives from the Court, Judge Dumlao blatantly demonstrated gross misconduct, outright disrespect, indifference, and a recalcitrant streak in his character.[20]
	AM No. P-07-2362 2008-06-13	MAGDALENA P. CATUNGAL CARPIO, J.
Aside from failing to pay her debt, Fernandez displayed her indifference by repeatedly refusing to comment on the affidavit-complaint. In its 1st Indorsement dated 8 October 2004 and 1st Tracer dated 18 March 2005, the OCA directed Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint. In its Resolution dated 5 June 2006, the Court directed Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint. Fernandez opted to ignore all these directives. Her disregard of the OCA's and the Court's directives is disrespectful[19] and betrays a recalcitrant streak in character. A resolution of the Court should not be construed as a mere request. It should be complied with promptly and completely.[20]
	AM NO. RTJ-06-2022 2007-06-27	OCA v. JUDGE REYNALDO M. ALON
In Tugot v. Coliflores,[15] the Court found respondent judge guilty of negligence and violation of a Supreme Court Rule and imposed a fine of P20,000.00. Likewise, in Imbang v. Del Rosario,[16] the Court finds respondent liable for violation of Supreme Court directives and was fined P21,000.00.
	AM NO. MTJ-04-1531 2007-03-06	PASTORA DELA CRUZ v. JUDGE PLACIDO B. VALLARTA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Re: Audit Report in Attendance of Court Personnel of Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila,[26] citing the case of Imbang v. Del Rosario,[27] the Court held that the office of the judge requires him to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors. It is gross misconduct, even outright disrespect for the Court, for respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially. After all, a resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive.[28]
	AM NO. P-04-1838 2006-08-31	RE: AUDIT REPORT ON ATTENDANCE OF COURT PERSONNEL OF RTC
As enunciated in Imbang v. Del Rosario,[14] the office of the judge requires him to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors. It is gross misconduct, even outright disrespect for the Court, for respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially. After all, a resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive.
	AM NO. MTJ-04-1556 2005-03-31	PURITA LIM v. JUDGE CESAR M. DUMLAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J
The office of the judge requires him to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors. It is gross misconduct, even outright disrespect for the Court, for respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially. After all, a resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive. (Emphasis supplied)[24]