Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE: REPORT OF DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR BERNARDO T. PONFERADA RE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-05-1924 2010-10-13	RE: CASES SUBMITTED FOR BEFORE JUDGE DAMASO A. HERRERA BERSAMIN, J.
Judge Herrera should have sought additional time by simply filing a request for extension if, to him, rendering a decision or resolve a matter beyond the reglementary period became unavoidable. That he did not so seek additional time reflected his indifference to the prescription to decide within the time limits of the law. Thus, we choose not to consider seriously his excuses as exempting him from the due observance of the time limits of the law or as exonerating him from administrative liability. The excuses, assuming they were true, could only be treated as mitigating circumstances vis-à-vis the properly imposable penalty.[17] In this regard, the fact that the more than 1,000 inherited cases added to Judge Herrera's workload can be treated as a mitigating circumstance.
	AM NO. MTJ-07-1685 2007-09-03	GIDEON B. JUSON v. JUDGE VICENTE C. MONDRAGON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court cannot overstress this policy on prompt disposition or resolution of cases. Delay in case disposition is a major culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the judiciary and the lowering of its standards.[21] Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period, without strong and justifiable reasons, constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanction on the defaulting judge.[22]
	AM NO. RTJ-07-2057 2007-08-07	ROSALINA GALANZA v. JUDGE HENRY J. TROCINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We cannot overstress this policy on prompt disposition or resolution of cases. Delay in case disposition is a major culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the judiciary and the lowering of its standards.[31] Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period, without strong and justifiable reason, constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanction on the defaulting judge.[32]
	AM NO. MTJ-06-1653 2007-07-30	EUGENIO JUAN R. GONZALEZ v. JUDGE LIZABETH G. TORRES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The office of the judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the Constitution and the law in the discharge of official duties.[9] Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. Moreover, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, directs judges to "dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods." Judges must closely adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to preserve the integrity, competence and independence of the judiciary and make the administration of justice more efficient.[10] Time and again, we have stressed the need to strictly observe this duty so as not to negate our efforts to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin problems of congestion and delay that have long plagued our courts. Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhort judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their courts, to wit: PROMPTNESS
	AM NO. MTJ-06-1653 2007-07-30	EUGENIO JUAN R. GONZALEZ v. JUDGE LIZABETH G. TORRES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We cannot overstress this policy on prompt disposition or resolution of cases. Delay in case disposition is a major culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the judiciary and the lowering of its standards.[23] Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period, without strong and justifiable reason, constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanction on the defaulting judge.[24]
	AM No. MTJ-07-1662 2007-06-08	AURORA E. BALAJEDEONG v. JUDGE DEOGRACIAS K. DEL ROSARIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We cannot overstress this policy on prompt disposition or resolution of cases. Delay in case disposition is a major culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the judiciary and the lowering of its standards.[13] Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period, without strong and justifiable reason, constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanction on the defaulting judge.[14]
	AM NO. RTJ-05-1950 2006-02-13	RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT OF RTC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The office of the judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the Constitution and the law in the discharge of official duties.[10] Section15 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. Moreover, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to "dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods." Judges must closely adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to preserve the integrity, competence, and independence of the judiciary and make the administration of justice more efficient.[11] Time and again, we have stressed the need to strictly observe this duty so as not to negate our efforts to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin problems of congestion and delay that have long plagued our courts. Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhorts judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their courts, to wit:6. PROMPTNESS
	AM NO. RTJ-05-1965 2006-01-23	OCA v. JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The office of a judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the Constitution and the law in the discharge of official duties. [10] Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three (3) months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. Moreover, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to "dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods." Judges must closely adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to preserve the integrity, competence and independence of the judiciary and make the administration of justice more efficient. [11] Time and again, we have stressed the need to strictly observe this duty so as not to negate our efforts to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin problems of congestion and delay that have long plagued our courts. [12] Also, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhorts judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their courts, to wit: PROMPTNESS