This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-06-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Court has repeatedly warned judges to dispose of court business promptly, resolve pending incidents and motions, and decide cases within the prescribed periods 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." Such exhortation is in fact enshrined in Sec. 15, par. (1), Art. VIII of our Constitution, as well as in Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct,[11] which mandates that a magistrate should dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. For violations thereof we have invariably imposed penalties ranging from fine to suspension depending on the circumstances of each case as the number of motions or cases unresolved, the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the judge, etc.[12] | |||||
|
2005-06-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| its standards and brings it into disrepute." Such exhortation is in fact enshrined in Sec. 15, par. (1), Art. VIII of our Constitution, as well as in Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct,[11] which mandates that a magistrate should dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. For violations thereof we have invariably imposed penalties ranging from fine to suspension depending on the circumstances of each case as the number of motions or cases unresolved, the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the judge, etc.[12] The OCA correctly noted that the motion for reconsideration in this case, submitted for resolution on November 19, 2001, should have been resolved thirty (30) days hence,[13] or on December 19, 2001. However, respondent judge was only able to finally | |||||