This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-12-22 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| This tribunal has emphasized that judicial indolence is considered gross inefficiency punishable by fine or suspension from service without pay with the gravity of the penalty dependent on the attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.[43] Judge Layague ascribes the delay in the resolution of the motion to his ailing health and caseload. But this Court has ruled that if the caseload of the judge or any other circumstance prevents the disposition of cases within the prescribed period, he should ask for a reasonable extension of time from the Supreme Court, so as to avoid or dispel any suspicion that something sinister or corrupt is going on.[44] In Golangco v. Judge Villanueva,[45] we held that the mandate to promptly dispose of cases or matters applies also to motions or interlocutory matters or incidents pending before a magistrate. Unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate. | |||||
|
2001-09-21 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "Verily, the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel, hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice."[11] | |||||