The Case. Gonzales Vs Tolentino: Cralaw
The Case. Gonzales Vs Tolentino: Cralaw
GONZALES VS TOLENTINO
Held: NO. THERE IS UNDUE DELAY. The rule that a petition for certiorari
does not INTERRUPT the course of the principal caseUNLESS a TRO or Writ
of Preliminary Injunction has been issued against the public
respondent from further proceedingwith the case must be strictly
adhered to by appellate and lower courts NOTWITHSTANDING the
possibility that theproceedings undertaken by them tend or would render
NUGATORY the pending petition before the SC.Respondent’s justification for
the delay in resolving the motion for inhibition ─ in deference to the authority
of this Court toresolve the issues raised in the petition for certiorari ─ does not
impress. Section 7 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court providesthat a petition for
certiorari shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a
temporary restraining order or a writof preliminary injunction has been
issued against the public respondent from further proceeding with the
case. This rulemust be strictly adhered to by appellate and lower courts
notwithstanding the possibility that the proceedings undertaken bythem tend
to or would render nugatory the pending petition before this Court. But
even gratuitously crediting respondent’s justification for
the delay, since the Court
resolved complainant’s petition for certiorari on April 11,2007, still,
given the nature and history of the cases, respondent unduly delayed
the resolution of amere motion for inhibition ─ only on October
8,2008, after the Court referred the present complaint to the
appellate courtand after complainant filed a reiterative motion.WHEREFORE,
respondent is found GUILTY of undue delay in rendering an order.
Doctrine learned. – All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the
date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months
for all other lower courts. This rule must be strictly adhered to by appellate and
lower courts notwithstanding the possibility that the proceedings undertaken
by them tend to or would render nugatory the pending petition before this
Court.