This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-12-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Aware of the caseload of judges, this Court has viewed with understanding requests for extension made by judges. Hence, should a judge find himself unable to decide cases within the 90-day period for doing so, he can ask for an extension of time for deciding the same. Such requests are generally granted.[16] | |||||
|
2006-08-31 |
|||||
| Judges are subject to human limitations.[16] It is not lost upon us that the respondent suffered from serious ailments and was hospitalized therefor. However, while these circumstances will not exculpate him from administrative liability, they may be considered as mitigating circumstances.[17] As recommended by the OCA, he should be fined the amount of P1,000.00. | |||||
|
2004-02-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Judges should dispose of court business promptly within the period prescribed by law or the extended time granted them by this Court.[18] This is mandated by Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and by no less than the Constitution itself.[19] Canon 6 reminds a judge to be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him or her, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied.[20] Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the public in the institution of justice, lowers its standards and brings them into disrepute. Every judge must cultivate a capacity for quick decision; he must not delay the judgment which a party justly deserves. The public trust reposed in a judge's office imposes upon him the highest degree of responsibility to promptly administer justice.[21] | |||||
|
2003-08-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The requirement of the law that cases be decided within a specified period from their submission is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice. It cannot be gainsaid that justice delayed is justice denied, and delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary, lowers its standard and brings it into disrepute.[25] Indeed, procrastination among members of the judiciary in rendering decisions and acting upon cases before them causes great injustice to the parties and invites suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of the judge.[26] | |||||