Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

	AM No. MTJ-10-1754 2010-10-20	NARCISO BERNARDO v. JUDGE PETER M. MONTOJO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Respondent Judge Montojo's reason for the delay in resolving Criminal Case Nos. 4173-4176, i.e., complainant Bernardo's insistence on being represented by a PAO lawyer, is not acceptable. A judge should not be at the mercy of the whims of lawyers and parties for it is not their convenience which should be the primordial consideration but the administration of justice.[8] Respondent Judge Montojo's duty was to ascertain that complainant Bernardo was properly represented during trial and respondent Judge Montojo could have complied therewith by appointing a counsel de oficio for complainant Bernardo.