This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-05-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court imposed a fine of P10,000.00 upon a judge who failed to decide one case within the reglementary period, without offering an explanation for such delay;[10] another who left one motion unresolved within the prescriptive period;[11] and a third who left eight cases unresolved beyond the extended period of time granted by the Court, taking into consideration that the judge involved was understaffed, burdened with heavy caseload, and hospitalized for more than a month.[12] In another case, the judge was fined P10,100.00 for failing to act on one motion.[13] The Court fixed the fine at P11,000.00 when the judge failed to resolve a motion for reconsideration and other pending incidents relative thereto because of alleged lack of manpower in his sala;[14] when the judge decided a case for forcible entry only after one year and seven months from the time it was submitted for resolution, giving consideration to the fact that said judge was still grieving from the untimely demise of his daughter;[15]when a judge resolvedamotionafter an undue delay of almost eight months;[16]when a judge resolved a motion only after 231 days;[17] when a judge failed to resolve three cases within the reglementary period;[18] and when a judge failed to resolve a motion to cite a defendant for contempt, the penalty being mitigated by the judge's immediate action to determine whether the charge had basis.[19] In one case, the judge was fined P12,000.00 for failing to decide one criminal case on time, without explaining the reason for the delay.[20] Still in other cases, the maximum fine of P20,000.00 was imposed by the Court on a judge who was delayed in rendering decisions in nine criminal cases, failed altogether to render decisions in 18 other cases, and promulgated decisions in 17 cases even after he had already retired;[21] a judge who failed to decide 48 cases on time and to resolve pending incidents in 49 cases despite the lapse of a considerable length of time;[22] a judge who unduly delayed deciding 26 cases because of poor health;[23] and a judge who failed to decide 56 cases, without regard for the judge's explanation of heavy caseload, intermittent electrical brownouts, old age, and operation on both his eyes, because this already constituted his second offense.[24] | |||||
|
2007-08-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A judge's inability to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions.[27] A judge should, at all times, remain in full control of the proceedings in his sala and, more importantly, should follow the time limit set for deciding cases.[28] | |||||
|
2003-07-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We agree with `the finding of the Office of the Court Administrator that respondent is administratively liable for the delay of nine (9) months in resolving a routine and perfunctory Amended Formal Offer of Exhibits, but we have serious reservations on penalizing him for the inclusion of inaccurate statements in his Certificate of Service. [6] | |||||