This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-09-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, the Court noted in Re: Cases Submitted for Decision Before Hon. Teresito A. Andoy, Former Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Cainta, Rizal,[10] that it has imposed varying amounts of fines for the same offense depending on the circumstances of each case, to wit:The fines imposed on each judge may vary, depending on the number of cases undecided or matters unresolved by said judge beyond the reglementary period, plus the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, such as the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the judge, etc. | |||||
|
2013-03-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge.[27] | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Under Section 11(B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, a respondent found guilty of a less serious charge, such as undue delay in rendering a decision or order, may be sanctioned with a fine of more than P10,000, but not exceeding P20,000. Nonetheless, this Court has in several cases allowed the imposition of fines less than the amount prescribed by the Rules in case there are mitigating circumstances in the commission of the offense,[12] as in the case at bar. Therefore, this Court modifies the recommendation of the OCA and hereby imposes a fine in the amount of ?1,000, with a warning that the commission of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more severely. | |||||
|
2010-09-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates lower court judges to decide a case within the reglementary period of ninety days. The Code of Judicial Conduct, under Rule 3.05[11] of Canon 3, likewise enunciates that judges should administer justice without delay and directs every judge to dispose of the court's business promptly within the period prescribed by law. Rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the ninety-day period is mandatory.[12] | |||||