Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE: REPORT OF DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR BERNARDO PONFERRADA RE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN BRANCH 21

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. 03-7-170-MCTC 2009-07-14	RE: REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT PER CURIAM
Considering the gravity of respondent's omissions and the absence of any explanation whatsoever on her part, her dismissal from the service is called for.[43] The administration of justice demands that those who don judicial robes be able to comply fully and faithfully with the task set before them.[44] In this regard, respondent miserably failed.[45] The wheels of justice would hardly move if respondent is allowed to continue working in the judiciary.[46] Therefore, as recommended by the OCA, after a thorough judicial audit, and considering the unrebutted audit reports on record, the penalty of dismissal from the service is in order.[47]
	AM NO. MTJ-06-1661 2007-01-25	OCA v. RAMON R. LEGASPI PER CURIAM
Considering the gravity of respondent's omissions and the absence of any explanation whatsoever on his part, his dismissal from the service is not unwarranted.[21] The administration of justice demands that those who don judicial robes be able to comply fully and faithfully with the task set before them. In this regard, respondent miserably failed. The wheels of justice would hardly move if respondent is allowed to continue working in the judiciary. Thus, as recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator, after a thorough judicial audit, and considering the unrebutted audit reports on record, we are constrained to impose upon respondent the penalty of dismissal from the service.
	AM NO. 00-2-65-RTC 2005-02-15	REPORT ON ON-THE-SPOT JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution mandates the lower courts to resolve cases within 3 months. Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to decide cases within the required period. Delay in the disposition of cases not only deprives litigants of their right to speedy disposition of their cases, but it also tarnishes the image of the judiciary. Failure to decide cases on time constitutes inefficiency that merits administrative sanction. [11]
	AM No. 02-9-580-RTC 2003-01-23	RE: REPORT ON MONITORING OF CASES IN RTC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution mandates the lower courts to resolve cases within 3 months. Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to decide cases within the required period. Delay in the disposition of cases not only deprives litigants of their right to speedy disposition of their cases, but it also tarnishes the image of the judiciary. Failure to decide cases on time constitutes inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.[4]