This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-01-22 |
PUNO, CJ. |
||||
| Failure to decide even a single case within the required period, absent sufficient justification,[13] constitutes gross inefficiency meriting administrative sanction.[14] A member of the bench cannot pay mere lip service to the 90-day requirement; he should instead persevere in its implementation.[15] Regarding directives from the OCA, judges should treat them as if issued directly by the Court and comply promptly and conscientiously with them since it is through the OCA that this Court exercises its constitutionally mandated administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Failure to do so constitutes misconduct and exacerbates administrative liability. | |||||
|
2005-01-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the mere fact that a case load is heavy cannot absolve erring judges from charges of inefficiency. They must request extensions of time within which to decide the delayed cases and matters.[21] This Court normally grants additional periods, once meritorious reasons are given. However, requests for extension can be implied when the OCA is informed in writing of a judge's heavy case load. This principle especially holds true when there are other extenuating circumstances showing sufficient justifications for the failure to resolve cases on time.[22] | |||||