Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. MTJ-09-1745 2010-09-27	OCA v. LEODEGARIO C. QUILATAN VELASCO JR., J.
No less than the 1987 Constitution, specifically Section 15(1), Article VIII, mandates lower courts to decide or resolve all cases or matters within three (3) months from their date of submission. In relation to this mandate, the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to dispose of their business promptly and decide cases within the required period. The Court, in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999, likewise requires judges to scrupulously observe the periods provided in the Constitution.[6] Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period, without strong and justifiable reason, constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of an administrative sanction on the defaulting judge.[7]
	AM No. MTJ-09-1745 2010-08-27	OCA v. LEODEGARIO C. QUILATAN VELASCO JR., J.
No less than the 1987 Constitution, specifically Section 15(1), Article VIII, mandates lower courts to decide or resolve all cases or matters within three (3) months from their date of submission. In relation to this mandate, the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to dispose of their business promptly and decide cases within the required period. The Court, in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999, likewise requires judges to scrupulously observe the periods provided in the Constitution.[6] Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period, without strong and justifiable reason, constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of an administrative sanction on the defaulting judge.[7]
	GR NO. 143951 2005-10-25	NORMA MANGALIAG v. EDELWINA CATUBIG-PASTORAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On April 17, 2000, the respondent RTC Judge, Edelwina Catubig-Pastoral, issued the first assailed Order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss,[6] relying upon the mandate of Administrative Circular No. 09-94, paragraph 2 of which reads:2. The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind in determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, applied to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
	GR NO. 143951 2005-10-25	NORMA MANGALIAG v. EDELWINA CATUBIG-PASTORAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Private respondent's claim for moral damages of P500,000.00 cannot be considered as merely incidental to or a consequence of the claim for actual damages. It is a separate and distinct cause of action or an independent actionable tort. It springs from the right of a person to the physical integrity of his or her body, and if that integrity is violated, damages are due and assessable.[31] Hence, the demand for moral damages must be considered as a separate cause of action, independent of the claim for actual damages and must be included in determining the jurisdictional amount, in clear consonance with paragraph 2 of Administrative Circular No. 09-94.