ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1188 July 2, 2001 - JOSE E. GURAY v. FABIAN M. BAUTISTA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1481 July 5, 2001 - RCBC v. NOEL V. QUILANTANG

  • G.R. No. 135199 July 5, 2001 - CRISOSTOMO MAGAT, ET AL. v. ALBERT M. DELIZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141285 July 5, 2001 - CEBU INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE, ET AL. v. CEBU INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE EMPLOYEES’ UNION

  • G.R. No. 141947 July 5, 2001 - ISMAEL V. SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144275 July 5, 2001 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC July 6, 2001 - RE: FERDINAND J. MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 132318 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO F. MUERONG

  • G.R. No. 134114 July 6, 2001 - NESTLE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134779 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERSON FLORAGUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137608-09 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO TAGANNA

  • G.R. No. 143375 July 6, 2001 - RUTH D. BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131856-57 July 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM MONTINOLA

  • G.R. Nos. 85494, 85496 & 195071 July 10, 2001 - CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126166 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ALLAN TEJADA

  • G.R. No. 133928 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECESARIO HIJAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136267 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL ABRENICA CUBCUBIN, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 142801-802 July 10, 2001 - BUKLOD NG KAWANING EIIB, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1253 July 11, 2001 - KIAT REAPORT, ET AL. v. EFREN S. MARIANO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1452 July 11, 2001 - FERMA C. PORTIC v. MARIO B. LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. P-01-1479 July 11, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RUBEN B. ALBAYTAR

  • G.R. No. 104802 July 11, 2001 - AURELIA S. LLANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108301 & 132539 July 11, 2001 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108346 July 11, 2001 - MARIANO Z. VELARDE, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135210 July 11, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ISABELA CULTURAL CORP.

  • G.R. No. 137050 July 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE CORTES

  • G.R. No. 137891 July 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS PATRIARCA

  • G.R. No. 140365 July 11, 2001 - CESAR P. UY, ET AL v. VICTORINO P. EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140974 July 11, 2001 - RAMON ORO v. GERARDO D. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1349 July 12, 2001 - BERNADETTE MONDEJAR v. MARINO S. BUBAN

  • G.R. No. 101974 July 12, 2001 - VICTORIA P. CABRAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102313 July 12, 2001 - R. F. NAVARRO & CO. v. FORTUNATO A. VAILOCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102696, 102716, 108257 & 120954 July 12, 2001 - ALBERTO LOOYUKO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104223 July 12, 2001 - TIBURCIO SAMONTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104383 July 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIANO AMESTUZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112590 July 12, 2001 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131638-39 July 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO D. MEDENILLA

  • G.R. No. 138737 July 12, 2001 - FINMAN GEN. ASSURANCE CORP., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138576-77 July 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY JACOB

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1322 July 17, 2001 - RENATO H. SANCHEZ v. GEMINIANO A. EDUARDO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1484 July 17, 2001 - JOSE R. ASTORGA v. NICOLASITO S. SOLAS

  • G.R. Nos. 103550 & 103551 July 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ROMERICO PORRAS

  • G.R. No. 133814 July 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES ORTIZ

  • G.R. Nos. 134540-41 July 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. DIONISIO BATALLER

  • G.R. Nos. 109559 & 109581 July 19, 2001 - BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111535 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CAMPOS

  • G.R. Nos. 113255-56 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO S. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 125698 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO E. HAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128153-56 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. BUISON

  • G.R. No. 131216 July 19, 2001 - LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132177 July 19, 2001 - JOSE F. CAOIBES v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133190 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS LOR

  • G.R. No. 135145 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMOND G. MAXION

  • G.R. No. 137545 July 19, 2001 - TERESITA D. GAITE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139789 July 19, 2001 - POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO BILDNER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139967 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL TALAVERA

  • G.R. Nos. 141011 & 141028 July 19, 2001 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORP. v. ISAGANI C. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 144179 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMSHAND C. THAMSEY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1350 July 20, 2001 - LORENZO PASCUAL, ET AL. v. CESAR M. DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. 110263 July 20, 2001 - ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117187 July 20, 2001 - UNION MOTOR CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120176 July 20, 2001 - MA. VALENTINA SANTANA-CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124442 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO S. COMPACION

  • G.R. No. 132926 July 20, 2001 - ELVIRA AGULLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133580 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO GENEBLAZO

  • G.R. Nos. 135030-33 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MERCY LOGAN

  • G.R. No. 135666 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 135865 July 20, 2001 - NAGKAKAISANG KAPISANAN KAPITBAHAYAN SA COMMONWEALTH AVE. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138501 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. LAXA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139150 July 20, 2001 - PABLO DELA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142024 July 20, 2001 - GUILLERMO SARABIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 145838 July 20, 2001 - NICASIO I. ALCANTARA v. COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146079 July 20, 2001 - KANEMITSU YAMAOKA v. PESCARICH MANUFACTURING CORP., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1564 July 26, 2001 - MARISSA M. GORDON, ET AL. v. FRISCO T. LILAGAN

  • G.R. Nos. 132325-26 July 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO ESPINA

  • G.R. No. 133225 July 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN CONCEPCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113176 & 113342 July 30, 2001 - HANIL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. Nos. P-00-1381 & A.M. No. P-00-1382 July 31, 2001 - EFREN B. MALLARE v. RONALD ALLAN A. FERRY

  • G.R. No. 105647 July 31, 2001 - ERNESTO BIONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121298 & 122123 July 31, 2001 - GENARO RUIZ, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129329 July 31, 2001 - ESTER M. ASUNCION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130707 July 31, 2001 - VERONICA ROBLE, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR ARBASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134634 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAZARO CLARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134831-32 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON N. LOGMAO

  • G.R. Nos. 136827 & 136799 July 31, 2001 - SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ET AL. v. TROPICAL HOMES

  • G.R. No. 136847 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODULFO P. VILLARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138289 July 31, 2001 - GRACIANO PALELE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139180 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 139529 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO BRACERO

  • G.R. No. 139622 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO PERRERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142616 July 31, 2001 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. RITRATTO GROUP INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143687 July 31, 2001 - RAMON ESTANISLAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144702 July 31, 2001 - U.I.C. ET AL. v. U.I.C. TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING PERSONNEL AND EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145389 July 31, 2001 - ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL. v. RONNIE C. SILVESTRE

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. MTJ-00-1322   July 17, 2001 - RENATO H. SANCHEZ v. GEMINIANO A. EDUARDO

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [A.M. No. MTJ-00-1322. July 17, 2001.]

    RENATO H. SANCHEZ, Complainant, v. JUDGE GEMINIANO A. EDUARDO, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    That judges must decide cases promptly and expeditiously cannot be overemphasized, for justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary. If they cannot decide cases within the period allowed by the law, they should seek extensions from this Court to avoid administrative liability.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Case


    In a sworn Administrative Complaint filed by Renato H. Sanchez on June 10, 1999, Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo of the Municipal Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, was charged with serious misconduct and gross inefficiency. The Complaint reads thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo (hereinafter referred to as [r]espondent) is presently the [p]residing [j]udge of the Municipal Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, where he may be served with summons and other judicial processes;

    "2. Sometime on May 22, 1997, Renato H. Sanchez (hereinafter referred to as [c]omplainant) filed a Petition (Election Protest) with respondent while he was then the [p]residing [j]udge of the Municipal Trial Court of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija, entitled [’]Renato H. Sanchez, Protestant, versus Conrado H. [Aberin], Protestee[’] docketed as Case No. 001-97. Copy of said [P]etition is hereto attached as Annex ‘A’;

    "3. Sometime on June 5, 1997, protestee, Conrado H. Aberin, through counsel, filed his Answer to said Petition. Copy of said Answer is hereto attached as Annex ‘B’;

    "4. On June 19, 1997, respondent issued an Order setting the Petition for pre-trial conference. Copy of said Order is hereto attached as Annex ‘C’;

    "5. On June 26, 1997, respondent issued an Order directing the Municipal Treasurer of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija, to safeguard the questioned ballot boxes and for the protestant (herein complainant) and protestee to submit their respective members to the revision committee. Copy of said Order is hereto attached as Annex ‘D’;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "6. On July 17, 1997, respondent issued an Order directing the protestant (complainant herein) to make a cash deposit for the three (3) questioned ballot boxes. Copy of said Order is hereto attached as Annex ‘E’;

    "7. On July 24, 1997, respondent issued an Order, directing, among others, the protestant (complainant herein) and protestee to submit the name[s] of three (3) persons as their principal revisors and another three (3) as alternative revisors. Copy of said Order is hereto attached as Annex ‘F’;

    "8. On July 31, 1997, protestant submitted to the respondent the nomination of his three (3) principal revisors and three (3) alternative revisors. Copy of said nomination is hereto attached as Annex ‘G’;

    "9. Sometime [o]n August 21, 1997, respondent issued an Order granting the prayer of the counsel for the protestee to file a Motion to Dismiss the electoral protest and for counsel for the protestant (herein complainant) to file his comment thereon within fifteen (15) days from receipt of said Motion. Copy of said Order is hereto attached as Annex ‘H’;

    "10. On September 9, 1997, respondent issued an Order declaring that up to said even date, counsel for the protestee has not yet filed the Motion to Dismiss and directed the counsel for the protestee to file the same [within] ten (10) days from receipt of said Order. Copy of said order is hereto attached as Annex ‘I’;

    "11. Sometime on September 23, 1997, protestee filed his Motion to Dismiss, copy attached as Annex ‘J’;

    "12. Sometime on October 9, 1997, complainant filed his Opposition/Comment to protestee’s Motion to Dismiss Petition. Copy of said Opposition/Comment is hereto attached as Annex ‘K’;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "13. Sometime on November 6, 1997, respondent issued a Resolution dismissing protestant/complainant’s Election Protest for his failure [’]to comply with the requirements mandated by the Rules.[’] Copy of said Resolution is hereto attached as Annex ‘L’;

    "14. On November 17, 1997 and within the reglementary period, complainant through counsel, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said Resolution setting the same for hearing on November 20, 1997 at 10:00 A.M. Copy of said Motion is hereto attached as Annex ‘M’;

    "15. On November 18, 1997, the respondent issued an order setting the Motion for Reconsideration on November 27, 1997 at 9:00 A.M. Copy of said Order is hereto attached as Annex ‘N’;

    "16. On December 2, 1997, respondent issued an Order, directing the counsel for the protestee to file his comment to the Motion for Reconsideration within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Copy of said Order is hereto attached as Annex ‘O’;

    "17. Sometime on February 5, 1997 counsel for the protestee filed his Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration. Copy of said Comment is hereto attached as Annex ‘P’;

    "18. On April 16, 1997, respondent issued an Order considering the case [or] Motion for Reconsideration submitted for resolution. Copy of said order is hereto attached as Annex ‘Q’;

    "19. On May 19, 1997, surprisingly, respondent issued another Order considering the case (Motion for Reconsideration) submitted for resolution;

    "20. Around ONE (1) YEAR has already elapsed since complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration was deemed submitted for resolution but up to now said Motion has remained unresolved to the great prejudice of the complainant (considering that municipal trial courts are mandated to decide barangay election protest[s] within fifteen (15) days after the filing thereof pursuant to Sec. 252 of the Omnibus Election Code) and in violation of the statutory mandate for lower courts to resolve cases/motions within ninety (90) days from date of submission;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "21. Complainant can safely assume that despite his failure to resolve his Motion for Reconsideration within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days from its date of submission, respondent has continued to receive his salaries on the basis of a falsified certificate of service attesting that he has no pending cases/motions submitted for decision or resolutions beyond the 90-day period set by law. This can be easily verified through a corresponding judicial audit;

    "22. Respondent’s failure to decide complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration violates his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In his letter-comment dated August 13, 1999, respondent judge pleaded that the charges against him be dismissed. He explained as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Admittedly, on April 16, 1998, I issued an Order that the case [be] deemed submitted for resolution.

    "Nevertheless, protestant’s Motion for Reconsideration was not thereafter resolved because prior [to] and after to April 16, 1998, the protestant approached me and intimated that there was a pending settlement by him and the protestee. I called for the parties, even without setting the case, for the purpose of advising them to file before the Court the necessary pleadings, which the parties agreed [to].

    "In fact, the last time I talked to the protestant, he was telling me to release the deposit made by him in Court. But, I did not agree and advise[d] him to file the necessary motion.

    "From then [on], I heard nothing from the parties. They did not file any pleading.

    "Incidentally, I was given various assignments by Executive Judge Arturo Bernardo, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Gapan, Nueva Ecija to handle cases within the Municipal Trial Court of General Tinio, Peñaranda, San Leonardo and Gapan [— all in] Nueva Ecija.

    "Faithfully and religiously, I attended to my duties. Despite my physical attributes and age, I tried, without being remiss, to attend to my duties.

    "Logically, I often suffered mental lapses.

    "In the case for consideration, the protestant in spite of the alleged settlement of the case, did not even inform me of what transpired. No pleading was filed after April 16, 1999. This Honorable Office will precisely agree with me that [the] human mind is frail and treacherous." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Court Administrator’s Recommendation

    Finding merit in the Complaint, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, in his Report dated August 7, 2000, recommended that a fine be imposed on respondent judge, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Respondent judge, by his admission, is guilty of delay in deciding Election Protest Case No. 07-97, although there was allegedly a pending settlement between the parties and the former was given various assignments by the executive judge of RTC, Nueva Ecija. These are not enough reasons to free him from administrative liability. The objective of the rules of procedure adopted in all courts at all times is to promote a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Thus, a petition or protest contesting the election of a barangay officer should be decided by the municipal or metropolitan trial court within fifteen days from the filing thereof (Section 252, Omnibus Election Code). The period provided by law must be observed faithfully because an election case, unlike ordinary actions, involves public interest. Time is of the essence in its disposition since the uncertainty as to who is the real choice of the people for the position must be dispelled immediately. It is neither fair nor just that one whose right to the office is in doubt should remain in that office for an uncertain period. It must be noted that the term of office of barangay officials is only three years, hence the need for the resolution of the controversy in the shortest possible time. We cannot countenance such undue delay by a judge, especially now when there is an all-out effort to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the problems posed by congested dockets which have long plagued the courts. (Bolahin v. Occiano, 266 SCRA 203)."cralaw virtua1aw library

    x       x       x


    "For his undue delay in rendering a decision, respondent should be sanctioned. However, his liability is tempered by his 17 years of faithful and untainted service to the judiciary." 1

    With regard to the allegation that respondent had falsified his certificate of service, the court administrator recommended that a judicial audit be conducted to fully ascertain the veracity of the charge.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Court’s Ruling


    We agree with the court administrator.

    The Omnibus Election Code 2 mandates the resolution of election protests involving barangay positions within fifteen (15) days from the filing thereof. By his own admission, respondent failed to comply with this mandate. Complainant’s election protest was filed on May 22, 1997. On November 6, 1997, after the filing of numerous pleadings, respondent dismissed the election protest. He reasoned that the court did not acquire jurisdiction, because complainant had failed to follow some jurisdictional and procedural requirements. Complainant then filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 14, 1997; on April 16, 1998, the case was deemed submitted for resolution. To date, and by his own admission, respondent judge has not resolved the case.

    Respondent, in his defense, explains that the case remains pending, mainly because of the parties’ representation that they had reached an agreement regarding the same. He begs the Court’s indulgence, citing his heavy workload.

    The explanation does not persuade. That an agreement was reached by the parties with regard to the election protest is a contention belied by complainant’s vigorous insistence to have the case finally resolved. That respondent judge had a heavy caseload is likewise immaterial to his obligation to resolve the case and cannot be deemed as a sufficient excuse for his failure to do so. If at all, he should have asked this Court for a reasonable extension. But he did not.

    The failure of respondent to decide the election protest within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency. 3 His irresponsibility is made even more apparent by the fact that time is of the essence in the resolution of election cases, involving as they do the public interest and the mandate of the people.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Judges are bound to dispose of the court’s business promptly and to decide cases within the required period. 4 If they cannot do so, they should seek extensions from this Court to avoid administrative liability. Any delay in the resolution of a case is, ultimately, a delay of justice and, thus, a denial thereof. 5

    WHEREFORE, Judge Geminiano E. Eduardo is hereby found LIABLE for gross inefficiency. He is ordered to pay a FINE of five thousand pesos (P5,000) and is WARNED that future similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

    SO ORDERED.

    Melo and Vitug, JJ., concur.

    Gonzaga-Reyes and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., are on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Memorandum of the Court Administrator, p. 2.

    2. 252.

    3. Mamayan ng Zapote 1, Bacon, Cavite v. Ballerina, 265 SCRA 360, December 6, 1996. See also Bernardo v. Fabros, 307 SCRA 28, May 12, 1999; Sanchez v. Vestal, 298 SCRA 1, October 13, 1998.

    4. Rule 3.05, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Ethics.

    5. Seña v. Villarin, 328 SCRA 644, March 22, 2000.

    A.M. No. MTJ-00-1322   July 17, 2001 - RENATO H. SANCHEZ v. GEMINIANO A. EDUARDO


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED