This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-08-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| However, should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it may, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be clarified, and require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last clarificatory affidavits, or the expiration of the period for filing the same. Delay in the disposition of even one case constitutes gross inefficiency.[10] In the determination of the proper penalty, a number of factors have generally been taken into consideration, namely: the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the judge, etc. However, under the new amendments to Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, effective 1 October 2001, specifically Sec. 4, undue delay in rendering a decision in a case is classified as a less serious offense that merits under Sec. 10 (B) either suspension from office or a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not more than P19,999.00. However, under the circumstances, we shall not impose the foregoing penalty on respondent Judge considering that his less serious offense of undue delay in resolving Civil Case No. 2127 has been exacerbated and overshadowed by the more serious offense of willful defiance and contumacious refusal of respondent Judge to obey the lawful orders of this Court. | |||||
|
2000-07-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| case constitutes gross inefficiency[32] which this Court will not tolerate."[33] With regard to the charge of partiality, the Court pointed out in Dawa v. De Asa[34] that the people's confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but | |||||