Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Judge Perez Guilty of Undue Delay

    Uploaded by

    Diane Dee Yanee
    35 views1 page
    1) Trinidad Gamboa-Roces filed a complaint against Judge Ranhel Perez for failing to render a decision in her ejectment cases within the required 30-day period. 2) Judge Perez admitted the decision was made over 10 months after submission, well beyond the 30-day deadline. 3) The Supreme Court found Judge Perez guilty of undue delay, as the Constitution and rules require lower courts to resolve cases within 3 months of submission and ejectment cases specifically within 30 days. Judge Perez's excuses were insufficient to justify his lack of diligence.

    Original Description:

    Gamboa-roces vs. Judge Perez

    Original Title

    Gamboa-roces vs. Judge Perez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Trinidad Gamboa-Roces filed a complaint against Judge Ranhel Perez for failing to render a decision in her ejectment cases within the required 30-day period. 2) Judge Perez admitted the decision was made over 10 months after submission, well beyond the 30-day deadline. 3) The Supreme Court found Judge Perez guilty of undue delay, as the Constitution and rules require lower courts to resolve cases within 3 months of submission and ejectment cases specifically within 30 days. Judge Perez's excuses were insufficient to justify his lack of diligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    35 views1 page

    Judge Perez Guilty of Undue Delay

    Uploaded by

    Diane Dee Yanee
    1) Trinidad Gamboa-Roces filed a complaint against Judge Ranhel Perez for failing to render a decision in her ejectment cases within the required 30-day period. 2) Judge Perez admitted the decision was made over 10 months after submission, well beyond the 30-day deadline. 3) The Supreme Court found Judge Perez guilty of undue delay, as the Constitution and rules require lower courts to resolve cases within 3 months of submission and ejectment cases specifically within 30 days. Judge Perez's excuses were insufficient to justify his lack of diligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    TRINIDAD GAMBOA-ROCES vs. JUDGE RANHEL A.

    prescribed 30-day period and offered his deepest any order of extension granted by this Court, failure to
    PEREZ apologies, explaining that the delay was inadvertent and decide even a single case within the required period
    A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887; January 9, 2017 not intended to prejudice the plaintiffs. He explained that constitutes gross inefficiency. Moreover, Sections 2 and 5
    he was able to finish the final draft of his decision on of Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct enjoin the
    FACTS: Trinidad Gamboa-Roces filed an administrative December 1, 2014, but in his desire to have "a perfect judges to devote their professional activity to judicial duties
    complaint against Judge Ranhel A. Perez charging the latter decision," he did not immediately forward the draft to his and to perform them, including the delivery of reserved
    with gross ignorance of the law for his failure to render Clerk of Court as he would still polish its decision. He, decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable
    judgment on the consolidated ejectment cases within the however, got distracted with other issues and matters in promptness. This obligation to render decision promptly is
    reglementary period as prescribed by law. the office. further emphasized in Administrative Circular No. 3-99
    which reminds all judges to meticulously observe the
    In her complaint, complainant claimed that she was one of The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) through its periods prescribed by the Constitution for deciding cases
    the plaintiffs of an unlawful detainer cases. After the Report, dated September 7, 2016, recommended that the because failure to comply with the prescribed period
    mediation proceedings and the Judicial Dispute Resolution complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative transgresses the parties' constitutional right to speedy
    proceedings failed, it was referred back to the MCTC for matter and that "Judge Perez be found GUILTY of undue disposition of their cases.
    trial and was set for preliminary conference. As a new delay in rendering a decision or order and be admonished
    judge was soon to be assigned in the MCTC, the to be more mindful in the performance of his duties The Court has always reminded the judges to attend
    preliminary conference was reset, by Judge Evelyn D. particularly in the prompt disposition of cases pending promptly to the business of the court and to decide cases
    Arsenio, the then acting Presiding Judge. and/or submitted for decision/resolution before his court. within the required periods for the honor and integrity of
    the Judiciary is measured not only by the fairness and
    Complainant stated that when Judge Perez was appointed Issue: correctness of the decisions rendered, but also by the
    and assumed office, her counsel filed two (2) separate efficiency with which disputes are resolved. Any delay in
    motions for his inhibition in the two cases on the ground Whether or not the Respondent as the Presiding Judge is the disposition of cases erodes the public's faith and
    that she was previously involved in a legal confrontation guilty of undue delay of rendering a decision within the confidence in the Judiciary. Thus, judges should give full
    with Judge Perez himself when he was representing his reglementary period as prescribed by law. dedication to their primary and fundamental task of
    parents. Her motions, however, were denied in separate administering justice efficiently, in order to restore and
    orders. Thereafter, Civil Case Nos. 451- M and 452-M were Ruling: maintain the people's confidence in the courts.
    consolidated in the Order, dated March 11, 2014. After the
    preliminary conference for the two cases was held, the Yes, the Respondent as the Presiding Judge is guilty of The explanation given by Judge Perez of his being
    parties were then required to file their respective position undue delay of rendering a decision within the inexperienced as a newly appointed judge was too flimsy.
    papers. Thereafter, Judge Perez issued the Order, dated reglementary period as prescribed by law..The Supreme The excuses only show his lack of diligence in discharging
    November 21, 2014, submitting the cases for resolution. Court cited Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution administrative responsibilities and professional competence
    With this, complainant claimed that despite the lapse of which requires the lower courts to decide or resolve cases in court management wherein a judge is expected to keep
    more than ten (10) months, Judge Perez failed to decide or matters for decision or final resolution within three (3) his own listing of cases and to note therein the status of
    the cases in violation of the 30-day reglementary period months from date of submission. In complaints for forcible each case so that they may be acted upon accordingly and
    within which to decide an ejectment case. entry and unlawful detainer as in this case, Section 10 of without delay and must adopt a system of record
    the Rules on Summary Procedure specifically requires that management and organize his docket in order to monitor
    Judge Perez on the other hand, admitted that Civil Case the complaint be resolved within thirty (30) days from the flow of cases for a prompt and effective dispatch of
    Nos. 451-M and 452-M were decided beyond the receipt of the last affidavits and position papers. Without business.

    You might also like