This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-02-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| A judge cannot even justify his delay in deciding a case on the excuse that he was still awaiting the parties' memoranda. In Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental,[18] the Court held:x x x judges should decide cases even if the parties failed to submit memoranda within the given periods. Non-submission of memoranda is not a justification for failure to decide cases. The filing of memoranda is not a part of the trial nor is the memorandum itself an essential, much less indispensable pleading before a case may be submitted for decision. As it is merely intended to aid the court in the rendition of the decision in accordance with law and evidence - which even in its absence the court can do on the basis of the judge's personal notes and the records of the case - non-submission thereof has invariably been considered a waiver of the privilege. (Emphasis ours) | |||||
|
2007-01-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The Constitution mandates all cases be decided or resolved by lower courts within three months from submission.[13] The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously for the reason that justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should likewise be careful, punctual and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.[14] Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants the imposition of administrative sanction.[15] | |||||