This case has been cited 4 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] | |||||
|
2007-07-03 |
|||||
| In Visbal v. Buban,[13] the Court held that failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate.[14] Delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency.[15] Further, such delay constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge should dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. As a trial judge, respondent is a frontline official of the judiciary and should at all times act with efficiency and with probity.[16] Undue delay in the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary and unnecessarily blemishes its stature.[17] | |||||
|
2007-03-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| A judge's failure to resolve motions and other pending incidents within the prescribed period constitutes gross inefficiency. Undue delay in the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary and unnecessarily blemishes its stature.[23] | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The respondents filed an "Urgent Motion to Quash the Search Warrant or to Suppress Evidence."[12] They contended that the implementing officers of the NBI conducted their search at the first, second, third and fourth floors of the building at No. 1524-A, Lacson Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila, where items in "open display" were allegedly found. They pointed out, however, that such premises was different from the address described in the search warrant, the first and second floors of the Shalimar Building located at No. 1571, Aragon Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila. The respondents, likewise, asserted that the NBI officers seized Disudrin and Inoflox products which were not included in the list of properties to be seized in the search warrant. | |||||