This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-04-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| A member of the bench cannot pay mere lip service to the 90-day requirement; he/she should instead persevere in its implementation.[11] Heavy caseload and demanding workload are not valid reasons to fall behind the mandatory period for disposition of cases.[12] The Court usually allows reasonable extensions of time to decide cases in view of the heavy caseload of the trial courts. If a judge is unable to comply with the 90-day reglementary period for deciding cases or matters, he/she can, for good reasons, ask for an extension and such request is generally granted.[13] But Judge Bustamante did not ask for an extension in any of these cases. Having failed to decide a case within the required period, without any order of extension granted by the Court, Judge Bustamante is liable for undue delay that merits administrative sanction. | |||||