This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-02-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In his defense, Judge Vestil sought refuge from the fact that Branch 56 was saddled with a heavy caseload. We are, however, unconvinced. The Court knew the heavy caseloads heaped on the shoulders of every trial judge. But such cannot excuse him from doing his mandated duty to resolve cases with diligence and dispatch. Judges burdened with heavy caseloads should request the Court for an extension of the reglementary period within which to decide their cases if they think they cannot comply with their judicial duty. This, Judge Vestil failed to do. Corollarily, a heavy caseload may excuse a judge's failure to decide cases within the reglementary period but not their failure to request an extension of time within which to decide the case on time.[3] Hence, all that respondent judge needs to do is request for an extension of time over which the Court has, almost customarily, been considerate. | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Thus, despite the above supervening events, we can still impose the penalty of fine against the respondent judge deductible from his retirement benefits. In this case, we find that the infractions he committed all constitute serious charges warranting the imposition of fine in the amount of P20,000.00 to P40,000.00 range.[59] Considering the several violations he committed and the gravity and circumstances of these infractions, we find that the maximum amount of fine should be imposed on each charge. In so ruling, we note that this is not the first administrative infraction committed by the respondent judge; he had previously been fined P10,000.00 for undue delay in rendering decisions or orders.[60] | |||||
|
2009-07-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We are not unmindful of the burden of heavy caseloads heaped on the shoulders of every trial judge. But that cannot excuse them from doing their mandated duty to resolve cases with diligence and dispatch. Judges burdened with heavy caseloads should request the Court for an extension of the reglementary period within which to decide their cases if they think they cannot comply with their judicial duty.[37] Hence, under the circumstances, all that said judge needed to do was request for an extension of time since this Court has, almost invariably, been considerate with regard to such requests. She did not avail of such remedy.[38] A heavy caseload may excuse a judge's failure to decide cases within the reglementary period but not their failure to request an extension of time within which to decide the case on time.[39] | |||||