This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-07-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Another of the respondent's procedural lapses relates to the frequent resetting of the date of the preliminary conference. The preliminary conference scheduled for June 24, 2008 was reset, for various reasons, to August 26, 2008, November 25, 2008 and December 9, 2008, and was finally conducted on February 3, 2009, or almost two (2) years after the complainants filed their answer. Clearly, the respondent failed to exert his authority in expediting the proceedings of the unlawful detainer case. Sound practice requires a judge to remain, at all times, in full control of the proceedings in his court and to adopt a firm policy against unnecessary postponements.[37] | |||||
|
2010-11-24 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| "As a rule, the grant or denial of a motion for postponement is addressed to the sound discretion of the court which should always be predicated on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts or of the parties, the ends of justice and fairness should be served thereby."[24] Furthermore, this discretion must be exercised intelligently.[25] | |||||