This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-09-30 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, not once did respondent judge file a motion for extension of time to resolve his cases beyond the ninety-day period. His conduct was compounded by the fact that the only excuse he proffered was the delay of Court Stenographer Santiago in typing the Orders and transcribing the stenographic notes. Worse, as found by the audit team of the OCA, even after Santiago had submitted the typewritten Orders and transcript of stenographic notes, respondent judge was still not able to resolve the subject cases within the reglementary period. To be sure, delay in the transcription of cases does not absolve a judge from compliance with the rules. Judges are required to take down notes and to proceed in the preparation of decisions even without the transcripts. The three-month reglementary period continues to run with or without the transcripts or memoranda. Thus, their absence or the delay in their transcription cannot excuse respondent judge's failure to decide the cases within the ninety-day period.[26] | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In previous cases, we have imposed on judges the penalty of fines ranging from P5,000.00[11] to P20,000.00[12] for their failure to decide cases within the reglementary period. Under §9, in relation to §11(B), of Rule 140, which took effect on October 1, 2001, the imposable penalty for undue delay in rendering a decision or order includes a fine of P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. In view of the attenuating circumstances of respondent Judge's serious illness and his heavy caseload, a fine of P5,000.00, to be deducted from the amount of P20,000.00 withheld from respondent Judge's retirement benefits, would be appropriate. | |||||