Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE: REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. MTJ-11-1790 2013-12-11	OCA v. JUDGE RAYMUNDO D. LOPEZ CARPIO, J.
Simple misconduct is a transgression of some established rule of action, an unlawful negligence committed by a public officer.[59] It is classified as a less grave offense with a penalty of suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense, to dismissal for the second offense.[60]
	AM No. MTJ-08-1714 2011-02-09	DANIEL G. SEVILLA v. JUDGE FRANCISCO S. LINDO BERSAMIN, J.
On February 17, 2009, Judge Lindo filed an ex parte manifestation,[8] stating that he was involved in A.M. No. 08-3-73-MeTC entitled Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, Malabon City, another administrative case; that the Court, in the resolution dated April 22, 2008, ordered the release of his retirement benefits subject to the retention of P100,000.00 and to clearance requirements; and that the OCA's Docket Division refused to issue a clearance due to the pendency of this case; and that the P100,000.00 retention be considered as sufficient for both A.M. No. 08-3-73-METC and this case.
	AM No. MTJ-08-1714 2011-02-09	DANIEL G. SEVILLA v. JUDGE FRANCISCO S. LINDO BERSAMIN, J.
With Judge Lindo having earlier retired, only the third sanction of fine can be a practical sanction. In Hernandez v. De Guzman,[18] the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on the respondent judge for allowing frequent and groundless postponements of the hearings in a criminal case. Similarly, in Arquero v. Mendoza,[19] the Court meted a fine of P5,000.00 on the respondent judge for allowing unreasonable delay in the proceedings of prosecutions for a violation of BP 22. However, the recommendation of the OCA for a fine in the amount of P21,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits, is fully warranted, considering that Judge Lindo was previously fined for undue delay in rendering a decision in A.M. No. 08-3-73-METC.[20]
	AM No. RTJ-08-2152 2010-01-18	LUMINZA DELOS REYES v. JUDGE DANILO S. CRUZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Delay in the disposition of cases not only deprives litigants of their right to speedy disposition of their cases, but also tarnishes the image of the judiciary. Procrastination among members of the judiciary in rendering decisions and taking appropriate actions on the cases before them not only causes great injustice to the parties involved but also invites suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of the judge, in addition to the fact that it erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.[9]