A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC

Ruling

accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive. This contumacious conduct of refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued by the Court has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt of, the system. x x x [54] The records disclose that Judge Macabaya utterly failed to decide the cases submitted for decision or resolve pending incidents within the reglementary period as well as within the time frame that he himself fixed in the initial Action Plan. As noted during the audit, these cases were already deemed submitted for decision much further beyond the period [55] allowed by the Constitution and by statute. In Re: Judicial Audit of the RTC, Br. 14, Zamboanga City , [56] we cited Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which underscores the need to speedily resolve cases, thus: The Supreme Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. The office of the judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the Constitution and the law in the discharge of official duties. 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 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. 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. Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics [exhort] judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their courts, to wit: 6. PROMPTNESS He should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied. 7. 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. Parenthetically, Administrative Circular No. 1 dated 28 January 1988, requires all magistrates to observe scrupulously the periods prescribed