This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-03-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the Code of Judicial Conduct decrees that a judge should administer justice impartially and without delay. She should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of her obligation to promptly administer justice. It need not be overemphasized that any delay in the determination or resolution of a case no matter how insignificant is, at the bottom line, delay in the administration of justice in general.[14] Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and dedication to duty of judges. If they do not possess these traits, delay in the disposition of cases is inevitable to the prejudice of litigants. Accordingly, judges should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to promptly administer justice.[15] | |||||
|
2007-03-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the Code of Judicial Conduct decrees that a judge should administer justice impartially and without delay. He should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly administer justice. It need not be overemphasized that any delay in the determination or resolution of a case no matter how insignificant is, at the bottom line, delay in the administration of justice in general.[19] | |||||
|
2006-01-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Given the number of cases and matters respondent failed to decide and resolve, as well as his unexplained failure to further act on a number of cases despite the lapse of a considerable length of time, but taking into account cited mitigating circumstances, we find that the penalty of P20,000 is appropriate. [32] | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| No less than the Constitution itself states that "all cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the date of submission for the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all lower courts."[4] The Court has repeatedly held that failure to comply with the above-quoted constitutionally enshrined periods for deciding cases or resolving matters constitutes gross inefficiency which warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions.[5] Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system. Indeed, to uphold the integrity of the office, a judge's work should at all times reflect the import of diligence and professional competence.[6] | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have emphasized that delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary. Thus, judges should dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required period. To uphold the integrity of their office, their work should at all times reflect the values of diligence and professional competence.[13] | |||||
|
2005-02-14 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Under the new amendments to Rule 140,[12] undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge, for which a respondent shall be imposed the penalty of either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months or a fine of more than ten thousand pesos (P10,000) but not more than twenty thousand pesos (P20,000). The fines imposed vary in each case, depending chiefly on the number of cases or matters undecided or unresolved, respectively, within the reglementary period and other factors, to wit: the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the judge, etc. Thus, in a number of cases, the fines were set at ten thousand pesos (P10,000), for the judge failed to decide one (1) case within the reglementary period, without offering an explanation for such delay;[13] for one (1) motion left unresolved within the prescriptive period;[14] and for eight (8) cases left unresolved beyond the extended period of time granted to the judge, taking into consideration that the judge was understaffed, burdened with heavy caseload, and hospitalized for more than a month.[15] In another case, the judge was fined ten thousand one hundred pesos (P10,100) for failing to act on one (1) motion.[16] In other cases, the fine was set at eleven thousand pesos (P11,000) for the judge failed to resolve a motion for reconsideration and other pending incidents relative thereto, alleging lack of manpower in his sala as an excuse;[17] decided a case for forcible entry only after one year (1) and more than seven (7) months from the time it was submitted for resolution, considering that respondent judge was grieving due to the untimely demise of his daughter;[18] resolved one (1) motion only after an undue delay of almost eight (8) months in one case[19] or 231 days in another case;[20] failed to resolve three (3) cases within the reglementary period;[21] and failed to resolve a motion to cite a defendant for contempt, mitigated by the judge's immediate action to determine whether the charge had basis.[22] In another case, the judge was fined twelve thousand pesos (P12,000) for his failure to decide one (1) criminal case on time, without explaining the reason for the delay.[23] Still in other cases, the maximum fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) was imposed on the judges for delay in rendering decisions in nine (9) criminal cases and failing altogether to render decisions in eighteen (18) cases, taking note that the judge also promulgated his decisions in seventeen (17) cases even after he already retired;[24] failure to decide forty-eight (48) cases on time and failing to resolve pending incidents in forty-nine (49) cases despite the lapse of considerable length of time;[25] undue delay in deciding twenty-six (26) cases, even considering the judge's poor health;[26] and failing to decide fifty-six (56) cases despite the judge's explanation of heavy caseload, intermittent electrical brownouts, old age and operation of both his eyes, considering that the same was his second offense.[27] There were other cases in which the Court did not strictly apply the Rules as when it only imposed a fine of one thousand pesos (P1,000) for a delay of nine (9) months in resolving complainant's Amended Formal Offer of Exhibits, after finding that there was no malice in the delay and that the delay was caused by the complainant himself.[28] In two cases, we imposed a fine of five thousand pesos (P5,000) on a judge who was suffering from cancer, for failing to decide five (5) cases within the reglementary period and failing to decide pending incidents in nine (9) cases;[29] and on a judge who suffered from a serious illness diagnosed as "end stage renal disease secondary to nephrosclerosis," who in fact died barely a year after his retirement, for his failure to decide several criminal and civil cases submitted for decision or resolution and to act upon over a hundred criminal and civil cases assigned to the two branches in which he was presiding.[30] In other cases, the fines were variably set at more than the maximum amount when the undue delay was coupled with other offenses. In one case, the judge was fined twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000) for undue delay in rendering a ruling and for making a grossly and patently erroneous decision.[31] In another case, the judge was fined forty thousand pesos (P40,000) for deciding a case only after an undue delay of one (1) year and six (6) months and for simple misconduct and gross ignorance of the law, considering also that said undue delay was his second offense.[32] Finally, the fine of forty thousand pesos (P40,000) was also imposed in a case for the judge's failure to resolve one (1) motion, considering that he was already previously penalized in two cases for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and for Gross Ignorance of Procedural Law and Unreasonable Delay.[33] | |||||