Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Unitrust Devt Bank vs. Caoibes

    Uploaded by

    Ederic Apao
    129 views1 page
    Respondent judge is accused of delay in resolving a motion to dismiss a civil case filed by Unitrust Devt Bank. Unitrust filed the motion to dismiss in August 1998 due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case for 4 months. Despite follow-ups, the respondent judge did not resolve the motion until January 2000. The respondent judge blamed the delay on lost records and personnel changes in the office. However, the court held that the respondent judge has a duty to properly monitor and keep records of cases, and cannot pass blame to court personnel. A judge is responsible for resolving cases in a timely manner to maintain public faith in the judiciary.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    790. Unitrust Devt Bank vs. Caoibes

    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
    Respondent judge is accused of delay in resolving a motion to dismiss a civil case filed by Unitrust Devt Bank. Unitrust filed the motion to dismiss in August 1998 due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case for 4 months. Despite follow-ups, the respondent judge did not resolve the motion until January 2000. The respondent judge blamed the delay on lost records and personnel changes in the office. However, the court held that the respondent judge has a duty to properly monitor and keep records of cases, and cannot pass blame to court personnel. A judge is responsible for resolving cases in a timely manner to maintain public faith in the judiciary.

    Copyright:

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

    Unitrust Devt Bank vs. Caoibes

    Uploaded by

    Ederic Apao
    Respondent judge is accused of delay in resolving a motion to dismiss a civil case filed by Unitrust Devt Bank. Unitrust filed the motion to dismiss in August 1998 due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case for 4 months. Despite follow-ups, the respondent judge did not resolve the motion until January 2000. The respondent judge blamed the delay on lost records and personnel changes in the office. However, the court held that the respondent judge has a duty to properly monitor and keep records of cases, and cannot pass blame to court personnel. A judge is responsible for resolving cases in a timely manner to maintain public faith in the judiciary.

    Copyright:

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

    790. Unitrust Devt Bank vs.

    Caoibes
    Facts: Petitioner alleges that Respondent-Judge is guilty of delay in the resolution of its motion to dismiss filed
    in its Civil case entitled Garrido vs Unitrust. On August 12, 1998, UDB filed a motion to dismiss said case for the
    failure of the plaintiff, Olivia Garrido, to prosecute the case without justifiable reason for a period of four (4)
    months. Despite numerous follow-ups respondent judge failed to resolve the motion to dismiss. On January
    18, 2000,9 respondent judge resolved said motion. In his comment, respondent judge alleged that the instant
    complaint came as a surprise to him because he thought that everything was in order since the subject motion
    to dismiss had already been resolved on January 18, 2000, or two (2) months prior to the filing of the instant
    complaint on March 24, 2000. Respondent judge admitted that there was a delay in resolving the subject
    motion although he blamed, and sought to transfer the fault, to Officer-In-Charge and Legal Researcher
    Laureana C. Buenaventura for her failure to adopt a system of proper records management and for misplacing
    the records of petitioner’s case. Respondent judge explained that because Buenaventura abandoned her office
    on May 3, 1999, the records were found only after the newly designated Officer-In-Charge, the respondent
    Editha B. Caunan, conducted a physical inventory of cases. Since the records of Civil Case No. LP-98-0050 were
    misplaced, respondent judge claimed there was absolutely no way he could have acted on the motion even
    considering the urgent motions for resolution filed by UDB. Finally, respondent judge averred that upon
    receipt of the record, he immediately resolved the pending motion to dismiss on January 18, 2000. With
    respect to the alleged delay in resolving UDB’s ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession,
    respondent judge asserted that the late setting of the hearing was UDB’s fault since it took UDB more than
    eight (8) months to set the petition for hearing. Respondent judge claimed that after the initial hearing on
    September 14, 1999, he immediately resolved the petition and issued the writ of possession on November 25,
    1999, or two (2) months after the hearing. Hence, there was clearly no delay.
    Issue: whether or not respondent was guilty of delay
    Held: Yes. As a judge, he has the bounden duty to maintain proper monitoring of cases submitted for his
    decision or resolution. A judge ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision or resolution and is
    expected to keep his own record of cases so that he may act on them promptly. It is his duty to take note of
    the cases submitted for his decision or resolution and see to it that they are decided within the prescribed
    period. He cannot hide behind the inefficiency or irresponsibility of his court personnel because the latter
    are not the guardians of his responsibilities. Indeed, Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires
    respondent judge to organize and supervise the court personnel for prompt and efficient dispatch of
    business. More than once has this Court reiterated that the conduct and behavior of every official and
    employee of an agency involved in the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the most junior
    clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. This is so because the image of a court
    of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work
    thereat. This Court cannot countenance any act or omission of those involved in the administration of
    justice that would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.

    You might also like