Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELIMON R. CUEVAS v. JUDGE ISAURO M. BALDERIAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. MTJ-08-1719* 2010-11-23	ATTY. ARNOLD B. LUGARES v. JUDGE LIZABETH GUTIERREZ-TORRES PER CURIAM
Respondent judge's actuation is quite contrary to the rationale of the Rules on Summary Procedure which was promulgated particularly for the purpose of achieving "an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases."[30] It is not encouraging when it is the judge herself who occasions the delay sought to be prevented by the Rule.[31] Her lackadaisical attitude in sitting on the subject cases for years as well as her failure to immediately render judgment in Civil Case No. 19887 after the defendants therein failed to file their answer, clearly manifested her utter disregard of settled rules and jurisprudence relative to the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, to the detriment and prejudice of the complainants. Verily, respondent judge showed gross ignorance of the law. When the law is so elementary, not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[32]
	AM No. MTJ-08-1697 2008-02-29	ESTANISLAO V. ALVIOLA v. JUDGE HENRY B. AVELINO TINGA, J,
The judge shall issue the required Pre-Trial Order within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial. Said Order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the course of the action during the trial x x x Evidently, respondent judge violated the above-quoted provision by issuing the pre-trial order only on 2 January 2005[16] or more than four (4) months after the termination of the pre-trial conference. It should likewise be underscored that since the civil case is an unlawful detainer case falling within the ambit of the Rules on Summary Procedure, respondent judge should have handled the same with promptness and haste.[17] The reason for the adoption of the Rules on Summary Procedure is precisely to prevent undue delays in the disposition of cases. It is therefore not encouraging when, as in the case at bar, it is the judge himself who occasions the delay sought to be prevented by the rule. By no means is the aim of speedy disposition of cases served by respondent judge's inaction.[18]
	AM NO. MTJ-06-1642 2007-06-15	MANUEL B. ARCENAS v. JUDGE HENRY B. AVELINO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Sec. 21. Appeal. x x x The decision of the Regional Trial Court in civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer, shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom. x x x It is clear from the aforecited provision that the decision of the RTC in the appealed decision, in this case Civil Case No. 391, is immediately executory. Therefore, respondent's lackadaisical attitude in sitting on the case for more than five months only to thereafter inhibit himself therefrom, to the detriment and prejudice of the complainant, clearly shows his utter disregard of settled rules and jurisprudence. It must be stressed that the Rule was enacted to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases falling within its coverage.[8] It is therefore not encouraging when it is the judge himself who occasions the delay sought to be prevented by the Rule.[9]