This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-01-18 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence has assiduously impressed upon judges their sworn duty to decide cases promptly and expeditiously, failing which the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary[16] are eroded. While the Court gives Justice Lim the benefit of the doubt respecting his claim that he had to resolve 217 cases many of which were of older vintage, and absent any showing that the delay was motivated by malice, capriciousness or any ill-motive, he should have accorded the appealed case a measure of priority, given that it involved the welfare of government employees who were purportedly dismissed without cause. | |||||
|
2007-06-26 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The 2 December 2002 Order which directed that the "existing status quo be maintained restraining and enjoining defendants from continuing with the hearing" was, for all intents and purposes an indefinite extension of the first TRO, or "a renewed or second temporary restraining order proscribed by the rule and extant jurisprudence."[29] | |||||