This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-11-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Malapit,[53] respondent judge failed to release to the parties copies of the Decision on the same day it was promulgated. There were typographical errors in the Decision that have to be corrected by the stenographers. Atty. Itliong-Rivera positively testified on this matter. Significantly, the delay did not prejudice the accuseds' right to appeal. In a number of cases wherein the respondent judge committed delay in the release of decisions to the parties, the penalty meted upon him is only reprimand. Our rulings in Dizon vs. Judge Lopez,[54] Mangulabnan vs. Tecson[55] and Castro vs. Judge Malazo[56] are relevant. | |||||
|
2001-08-21 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Simple Neglect of Duty, however, signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[15] The Court has decided the following, inter alia, as constituting the less grave offense of Simple Neglect of Duty: delay in the transmittal of court records,[16] delay in responding to written queries, and delay of more than one (1) year and seven (7) months in furnishing a party with a copy of the court's decision.[17] As can be gleaned from the foregoing cases, mere delay in the performance of one's function has been consistently considered as a less grave offense of simple neglect of duty, punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.[18] | |||||