This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-09-28 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The non-submission of the transcript of stenographic notes by stenographers would not relieve judges of their duty to render a decision within the required period as judges are directed to take down notes of salient portions of the hearing and proceed in the preparation of decisions without waiting for the transcribed stenographic notes. Such incidents, including the non-filing of memoranda, non-compliance by parties with an order to file comment or reply to an opposition and the discovery of a pending incident only after physical inventory, are not adequate justifications for failing to render a decision or resolution within the prescribed period.[3] | |||||
|
2006-04-25 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Judge Blanco clearly violated both the Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct when she failed to decide 3 cases and resolve 11 motions within the reglementary period. This Court has always emphasized the need for judges to decide cases within the constitutionally prescribed 90-day period. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency which consequently warrants imposition of administrative sanctions.[11] | |||||
|
2005-02-17 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Incidents such as the non-filing of memoranda and non-compliance by the parties with order to file comment are not adequate justification for failing to render a decision within the prescribed period.[18] A judge is not supposed to study a case only after all the pertinent pleadings have been filed it is a mark of diligence and devotion to duty that a judge studies a case long before the deadline set for the promulgation of his decision has arrived.[19] | |||||