Cited Laws
Accordingly, in a 1st Indorsement dated July 12, 1989 by then Deputy Court Administrator Juanito C. Ranjo, complainants letter was referred to respondent judge for appropriate action and "requesting assistance towards the expeditious disposition of Criminal Case No. 2105 which was submitted for decision on October 25, 1988." Respondent judge was further directed to "return by indorsement these papers with the action taken therein within ten (10) days from receipt hereof." [2] When after the lapse of almost five (5) months respondent still had not acted on the case, complainant sent another follow-up letter dated January 25, 1990 to then Deputy Court Administrator Juanito C. Ranjo. The latter thereafter sent a first tracer letter dated February 6, 1990 to respondent judge, inviting the latters attention to the 1st Indorsement of July 12, 1989, with a warning that "preferential attention is hereby enjoined. Failure to do so will constrain us to bring this matter to the attention of the Honorable Court." [3] On March 15, 1990, respondent judge sent a 2nd Indorsement informing the Deputy Court Administrator that "the decision in Criminal Case No. 2105 has been personally written and drafted by the Presiding Judge and the final copy of the same, as edited and revised by him personally, is being personally finalized and would soon be promulgated." [4] (Italics ours) Despite such assurance, however, the case obviously remained dormant for a long period of time because on August 20, 1992, or more than two (2) years after respondents last written communication with the Office of the Court Administrator, complainant sent another letter addressed this time to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa stating that, despite several follow-ups and requests for the immediate resolution of his case, the same had remained pending for three (3) years, nine (9) months and twenty-four (24) days from the date it was deemed submitted for decision. Said letter was subsequently referred to respondent judge, in a 1st Indorsement of former Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad dated September 9, 1992, for appropriate action within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. [5] In his letter-reply dated November 16, 1992, respondent judge manifested that "the decision in Criminal Case No. 2105 entitled People vs. Serafin Battad is undergoing finalization (editing, retyping, and rechecking of authorities cited) in time to be included for promulgation in the December calendar of the 12th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Tagudin-Suyo Circuit, Province of Ilocos Sur." [6] Respondent judge again reneged on his undertaking, as a consequence of which then Deputy Court Administrator Bernad, apparently realizing the futility of it all, decided to refer the aforestated administrative complaint to this Court, with the recommendation that respondent judge be required to comment thereon. On May 31, 1993, the Court issued a resolution requiring respondent judge to file his comment within ten (
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2101 (Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 07-2763-RTJ) - EMIL J. BIGGEL, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL. PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, BAGUIO CITY.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2101
CaseA.M. No. MTJ-11-1787 [Formerly A.M. No. 08-5-146-MeTC] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARIANITO C. SANTOS, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 57, SAN JUAN CITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1787
CaseA.M. No. MTJ-04-1571 (Formerly A.M. No. 03-9-209-MCTC[1] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANICETO L. MADRONIO, SR., FORMER ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, MCTC, SAN FABIAN-SAN JACINTO, PANGASINAN.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1571