This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-12-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We do not agree. If respondent Judge Villarin indeed believed that the motions pending before him were defective, he could have simply acted on the said motions and indicated the supposed defects in his resolutions instead of just leaving them unresolved. The importance of judicious and prompt disposition of cases and other matters pending before the courts was aptly explained in Biggel v. Pamintuan:[23] | |||||