A.M. NO. RTJ-05-1965 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES, RTC, BRANCH 255, LAS PIÑAS CITY. R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that: a) this administrative matter be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against Judge Florentino M. Alumbres for undue delay in rendering decisions/orders in various cases; b) Judge Florentino M. Alumbres, formerly of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 255, Las Piñas, be administratively held liable for undue delay in rendering decisions/orders and be FINED in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), to be deducted from the Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) retirement benefits withheld from him pursuant to the First Division Resolution dated 14 November 2001; and c) the balance of the amount withheld from his retirement benefits be ordered released to him. [9] The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the OCA. The office of a judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the Constitution and the law in the discharge of official duties. [10] Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three (3) months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. Moreover, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to "dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods." Judges must closely adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to preserve the integrity, competence and independence of the judiciary and make the administration of justice more efficient. [11] Time and again, we have stressed the need to strictly observe this duty so as not to negate our efforts to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin problems of congestion and delay that have long plagued our courts. [12] Also, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhorts judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their courts, to wit: PROMPTNESS He should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied. PUNCTUALITY He should be punctual in the performance of his judicial duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys is of value and that if the judge is unpunctual in his habits, he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction with the administration of justice. In the same manner, Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1988, requires all magistrates to observe scrupulously the periods prescribed in Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution and to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts. We cannot overstress this policy on prompt disposition or resolution of cases. Delay in case disposition is a major culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the judiciary and the lowering of its standards. [13] In the present case, the OCA correctly observed that respondent judge did not deny the veracity of the find