This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-07-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Judge Lindo also failed to justify why he did not include in his monthly report the cases we referred to in our Resolution. Administrative Circular No. 4-2004 specifically enjoins presiding judges to reflect in their monthly report of cases all cases assigned to them for hearing and those submitted to them for decision. Failure to do so warrants the withholding of their salaries, without prejudice to whatever administrative sanctions this Court may impose on them or criminal action which may be filed against them. As the master of his court, Judge Lindo must know the pending cases before his court and which ones are submitted for decision, and thereby reflect the same in his monthly report. It should be emphasized that the responsibility of making physical inventory of cases primarily rests on the presiding judge.[53] Thus, he cannot use as an excuse for his non-compliance with the Administrative Circular the absence of an updated docket inventory in his court, or his lack of awareness of when these cases were turned over to his court. This stance all the more shows his incompetence in managing the affairs of his sala. The explanation Judge Lindo gave for not including Criminal Case Nos. 360-90 and 360-91 in his monthly inventory cannot also be given credence for the reason stated earlier. | |||||
|
2009-07-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court personnel since proper and efficient court management is his responsibility. Court personnel are not the guardians of a judge's responsibilities. The efficient administration of justice cannot accept as an excuse the shifting of the blame from one court personnel to another. A judge should be the master of his own domain and take responsibility for the mistakes of his subordinates.[34] | |||||
|
2009-07-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| accept as an excuse the shifting of the blame from one court personnel to another. A judge should be the master of his own domain and take responsibility for the mistakes of his subordinates.[34] Likewise, Judge Gamotin-Nery's explanation fails to convince us. Being designated Acting Presiding Judge in another sala in addition to her original station is no excuse for respondent judge's delay in promptly deciding cases pending before her sala. In Re: Report on the | |||||
|
2005-10-20 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| This Court has incessantly admonished members of the bench to administer justice without undue delay, for justice delayed is justice denied. The present clogged dockets in all levels of our judicial system cannot be cleared unless every magistrate earnestly, painstakingly and faithfully complies with the mandate of the law. Undue delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice which, in turn, brings the courts into disrepute and ultimately erodes the faith and confidence of the public in the judiciary.[5] Hence, the failure of judges to render judgments within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction.[6] | |||||
|
2005-03-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The rules require courts to decide cases submitted for decision generally within three (3) months from the date of such submission.[9] With respect to cases falling under the Rules on Summary Procedure, first level courts are only allowed thirty (30) days following the receipt of the last affidavit and position paper, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, within which to render judgment.[10] Moreover, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.[11] | |||||
|
2005-03-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| All told, we find respondent Judge guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision which, under Section 9(1),[18] Rule 140, of the Revised Rules of Court, is classified as a less serious charge. Under Section 11(B) of the same Rule, the penalty for such charge is suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.[19] In the Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City,[20] the Court observed the factors considered in the determination of the proper penalty for failure to decide a case on time:We have always considered the failure of a judge to decide a case within ninety (90) days as gross inefficiency and imposed either fine or suspension from service without pay for such. The fines imposed vary in each case, depending chiefly on the number of cases not decided within the reglementary period and other factors, to wit: 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. In the present case, there is a mitigating circumstance of admission by respondent Judge of his fault to decide the case on time, and the aggravating circumstance of undue damage to the complainant caused by the delay. Thus, the recommendation of two (2) months suspension by the OCA is proper. | |||||
|
2004-11-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Under Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the trial judge has the duty to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the period fixed by law.[8] It must be stressed that the present clogged dockets in all levels of our judicial system cannot be cleared, unless every magistrate earnestly, painstakingly and faithfully complies with the mandate of the law.[9] Further, the public's faith and confidence in the judicial system is eroded by every delay in the disposition of cases.[10] The failure of judges to decide cases within the period provided by law warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions against them.[11] | |||||