Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OCA v. JUDGE ANTONIO P. QUIZON

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM NO. MTJ-07-1685 2007-09-03	GIDEON B. JUSON v. JUDGE VICENTE C. MONDRAGON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Judge Mondragon ascribes the delay in his resolution of Juson's Motion for Intervention in Civil Case No. 355 to his failing health, which has not returned to normalcy since his stroke in 1997 due to high blood pressure. Such an excuse hardly merits serious consideration. Even if he was stricken by an illness which hampered his due performance of his duties, still it was incumbent upon Judge Mondragon to inform this Court of his inability to seasonably decide the cases assigned to him. His illness should not be an excuse for his failure to render the corresponding decision or resolution within the prescribed period. While the Court sympathizes with his woes, the demands of public service cannot abide by his illness.[17] In case of poor health, the Judge concerned needs only to ask this Court for an extension of time to decide/resolve cases/incidents, as soon as it becomes clear to him that there would be delay in his disposition thereof.[18] The Court notes that Judge Mondragon made no such request. Also, if his health problems had indeed severely impaired his ability to decide cases, Judge Monragon could have retired voluntarily instead of remaining at his post to the detriment of the litigants and the public.
	AM No. MTJ-07-1662 2007-06-08	AURORA E. BALAJEDEONG v. JUDGE DEOGRACIAS K. DEL ROSARIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Respondent Judge Del Rosario ascribes the delay in the resolution of Civil Case No. 367 to his failing health, as he was hospitalized several times due to heart ailment. Even if he was stricken by an illness which hampered the due performance of his duties, still it was incumbent upon respondent Judge Del Rosario to inform this Court of his inability to seasonably decide the cases assigned to him. His illness should not be an excuse for his failure to render the corresponding decision or resolution within the prescribed period. While we sympathize with his woes, the demands of public service cannot abide by his illness.[15] In case of poor health, the Judge concerned needs only to ask this Court for an extension of time to decide cases, as soon as it becomes clear to him that there would be delay in his disposition of his cases.[16] We note that respondent Judge Del Rosario made no such request. Also, if his health problems had indeed severely impaired his ability to decide cases, respondent Judge Del Rosario could have retired voluntarily instead of remaining at his post to the detriment of the litigants and the public.
	AM NO. MTJ-04-1531 2007-03-06	PASTORA DELA CRUZ v. JUDGE PLACIDO B. VALLARTA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
No less than the Constitution mandates judges to decide cases with deliberate dispatch. Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. For it cannot be gainsaid that justice delayed is justice denied. Procrastination among members of the judiciary in rendering decisions and acting upon cases before them not only causes great injustice to the parties involved but also invites suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of the judge.[24] If public confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved, judges must perform their official duties with utmost diligence.[25] There is no excuse for delay or negligence in the performance of judicial functions.