This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-09-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Judge Javellana's actuations as described above run counter to the mandate that judges behave at all times in such a manner as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.[48] We cannot stress enough that "judges are the visible representations of law and justice. They ought to be embodiments of competence, integrity and independence. In particular, municipal judges are frontline officers in the administration of justice. It is therefore essential that they live up to the high standards demanded by the Code of Judicial Conduct."[49] | |||||
|
2010-09-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A careful perusal of the transcript of stenographic notes[12] and the Minutes[13] of the hearing held on January 29, 2009 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-61294 and Q-95-62690, would clearly show that respondent indeed gave the defense ten (10) days to submit its reply to the prosecution's comment on the motion for reconsideration and, thereafter, she would resolve all pending incidents in said consolidated cases. As correctly observed by the OCA, the reglementary period to resolve the motion in question began to run from February 8, 2009 or after the lapse of ten days from January 29, 2009. Respondent, however, did not act on the matter and allowed a hiatus in the consolidated criminal cases. A judge cannot choose to prolong the period for resolving pending incidents and deciding cases beyond the period authorized by law. Let it be underscored that it is the sworn duty of judges to administer justice without undue delay under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Judges should act with dispatch in resolving pending incidents, so as not to frustrate and delay the satisfaction of a judgment.[14] | |||||
|
2007-05-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Judge Trocino also claimed that he had no knowledge of the cases submitted for decision because Atty. Mutia-Hagad did not remind him of these cases. This is no excuse. Judges and branch clerks of court should conduct personally a physical inventory of the pending cases in their courts and examine personally the records of each case at the time of their assumption to office, and every semester thereafter on 30 June and 31 December.[5] Judges ought to know which cases are submitted for decision and they are expected to keep their own record of cases so that they may act on them promptly.[6] Moreover, judges cannot be excused by the acts of their subordinates because court employees are not the guardians of a judge's responsibility.[7] Judges should not rely on their clerks of court for the proper management of the court's business. Judge Trocino should have devised an efficient recording and filing system in his sala so that he would personally know the status of each case and be guided accordingly. | |||||
|
2005-04-06 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We acknowledge that respondent has been in judicial service since 1990 up to the present. We find his declaration that no criminal or civil case has ever been filed against him to be true. However, the present administrative case and an earlier decided case with similar facts are too glaring to ignore. In that case, we reminded him that judges must not only be "good judges" but must also "appear to be good persons."[23] In the judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue; it is a necessity.[24] | |||||
|
2004-12-09 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| For sure, this Court has held in numerous cases that judges are expected to be more diligent in preparing their monthly certificates of service, by verifying every now and then the status of the cases pending before their sala. They cannot be excused by the acts of their subordinates as court employees are not the guardians of a judge's responsibility.[25] | |||||