This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-03-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The speedy disposition of cases in our courts is a primary aim of the Judiciary, so that the ends of justice may not be compromised and the Judiciary will be true to its commitment to provide litigants their constitutional right to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of their cases.[40] The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge administers justice impartially and without delay.[41] Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,[42] a judge is obliged to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.[43] To comply with his obligation, he must display such interest in his office which stops not at the minimum of the day's labors fixed by law, and which ceases not at the expiration of official seasons, but which proceeds diligently on holidays and by artificial light and even into vacation periods. Only thereby can he do his part in the great work of speeding up the administration of justice and rehabilitating the Judiciary in the estimation of the people.[44] Any unjustified failure to decide a case within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency that deserves the imposition of the proper administrative sanctions. Hence, decision-making is his primordial and most important duty as a member of the Bench. | |||||
|
2010-10-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 22, Kabacan, North Cotabato,[13] the Court has impressed upon trial judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously to accord with the time honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied, viz: Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. Indeed, a judge must display that "interest in his office which stops not at the minimum of the day's labor fixed by law, and which ceases not at the expiration of official sessions, but which proceeds diligently on holidays and by artificial light and even into vacation periods. Only thus can he do his part in the great work of speeding up the administration of justice and of rehabilitating the judiciary in the estimation of the people. | |||||
|
2010-09-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We have repeatedly emphasized the need for judges to resolve their cases with dispatch.[8] Delay does not only constitute a serious violation of the parties' constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases,[9] it also erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute.[10] | |||||
|
2010-08-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We have repeatedly emphasized the need for judges to resolve their cases with dispatch.[8] Delay does not only constitute a serious violation of the parties' constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases,[9] it also erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute.[10] | |||||
|
2007-10-09 |
|||||
| The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly because delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.[17] | |||||
|
2006-03-14 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Constitution mandates that all decisions be decided or resolved by lower courts within three (3) months from submission.[16] The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge.[17] | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Thus, the failure of a judge to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions. Even the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates in its pages the duties of judges to administer justice impartially and without delay.[7] Under The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,[8] judges are obliged to "perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness."[9] Only through diligence can a judge do his part in the great work of speeding up the administration of justice and of rehabilitating the Judiciary in the estimation of the people.[10] | |||||