This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court is well-aware of the previous administrative cases against respondent for failure to act with dispatch on cases and incidents pending before her. In Del Mundo v. Gutierrez-Torres,[23] respondent was found guilty of gross inefficiency for undue delay in resolving the motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 18756, for which she was fined P20,000.00. In Gonzalez v. Torres,[24] respondent was sanctioned for unreasonable delay in resolving the Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal Case No. 71984 and meted the penalty of a fine in the amount of P20,000.00. In Plata v. Torres,[25] respondent was fined P10,000.00 for undue delay in resolving the Motion to Withdraw Information in Criminal Case No. 6679, and another P10,000.00 for her repeated failure to comply with Court directives to file her comment on the administrative complaint against her. In Winternitz v. Gutierrez-Torres,[26] the Court held respondent guilty of undue delay in acting upon the Motion to Withdraw Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 84382, 84383, and 84384, and suspended her from office without salary and other benefits for one month. In Soluren v. Torres,[27] respondent was once again adjudged guilty of undue delay in acting upon repeated motions to withdraw the information in Criminal Case No. 100833 for which she was fined P20,000.00. In Lugares v. Gutierrez-Torres,[28] promulgated on November 23, 2010, the Court already dismissed respondent from the service for gross inefficiency, gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of duty, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, in relation to Civil Case Nos. 19887, 19063, 17765, and 18425; as well as for insubordination because she defied Court orders by failing to file her comment on the charges against her. Finally, in Pancubila v. Torres,[29] the Court imposed another fine of P20,000.00 upon respondent for undue delay in rendering a decision and violation of a directive in connection with Civil Case No. 20700. In all the foregoing administrative cases, respondent was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. | |||||