Módulo profesional: Xestión da recría de cabalos

Judges must be cautioned that it is not the date of signing the decision but the date of receipt of the Clerk of Court that must be reckoned from the date of submission of the case for decision in order to comply with the 90-day period xxx.

Salvador v. Salamanca, Adm. Matter No. R-177-MTJ, September 24, 1986

Judges should decide cases even if the parties failed to submit memoranda within the given periods. Non-submission of memoranda is not a justification for failure to decide cases. The filing of memoranda is not a part of the trial nor is the memorandum itself an essential, much less indispensable, pleading before a case may be submitted for decision.

Query of Judge Danilo M. Tenerife, Admin. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC, March 20, 1996

Delay in the transcription of stenographic notes by a stenographic reporter under the judge’s supervision and control cannot be considered a valid reason for delay in rendering judgment xxx xxx A judge cannot be allowed to blame his court personnel for his own incompetence or negligence xxx xxx Precisely, judges are directed to take down notes of salient portions of the hearing and proceed in the preparation of decisions without waiting for the transcribed

stenographic notes, the 90-day period for deciding cases should be adhered to. Bolalin v. Occiano, A. M. No. MTJ-96-1104, January 14, 1997

If the case load of the judge prevents the disposition of cases within the prescribe period, he should ask for a reasonable extension of time from the Supreme Court.

Rivera v. Lamorena, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1391, October 16, 1997

Xxx xxx The delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the

reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency.

Supreme Court almost always grants requests for extension of time to decide cases. A heavy caseload may excuse a judge’s failure to decide cases within the reglementary period; but not his or her failure to request an extension of time which to decide the same on time, (i.e. before the expiration of the period to be extended.

Q. Judge X failed to act on a motion to dismiss a case. He contends that the delay was brought about by the failure of his staff to present him the ex-parte motion to resolve. Is the contention of Judge X valid?

A. A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement by court personnel. Proper and efficient court management is as much as his responsibility. It is also his duty to organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business.

Rule 3.06.

While a judge may, to promote justice, prevent waste of time or clear up some

obscurity, properly intervene in the presentation of evidence during the trial, it should always be borne in mind that undue interference may prevent the proper presentation of the cause or the ascertainment of truth.

Valdez vs. Aquilizan, 133 SCRA 150

A judge may properly intervene to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time. He may intervene to profound clarificatory questions, but should limit himself only to clarificatory questions and not to ask searching questions after the witness had given direct testimony.

People vs. Catindihan, 97 SCRA 679

When a judge may intervene to clear some obscurity or prevent waste of time, the same must be done with considerable circumspection.

There will be undue interference if the judge will extensively profound questions to the witnesses, which will have the effect of or will tend to build or bolster the case for one of the parties.

Canon 14, CJE

A judge should avoid interruptions of counsel in their arguments except to clarify his mind as to their positions, and he should not be tempted to an unnecessary display of learning or a premature judgment.

(Canons of Judicial Ethics) – interference in conduct of trial.

While a judge may properly intervene in a trial of a case to promote expedition and prevent unnecessary waste of time, or to clear up some obscurity, nevertheless, he should bear in mind that his undue interference, impatience, or participation in the examination of witness, or a severe attitude on his part towards witnesses, especially those who are excited or terrified by the unusual circumstances of trial, may tend to prevent the proper presentation of the cause, or the ascertainment of the truth in respect thereto.

Judges are not mere referees like those of a boxing bout… they should have as mush interest as counsel in the orderly and expeditious presentation of evidence, calling the

attention of counsel to points at issue that are overlooked, directing them to ask the question that would elicit the facts on the issues invoked, clarifying ambiguous remarks of witnesses

(People vs. Ihasan, 129 SCRA 695).

Rule 3.07.

case and should require similar restraint on the part of the court personnel.

A judge must hear both sides before he should attempt to make any conclusion on the issues of a case – which conclusion could be the basis of his written judgment. It is

dangerous for a judge to make comments, specially publicly, of pending cases before his court or even impending cases such as those publicly known and anticipated to be filed in court having been subjected of wide publicity or sensationalized in the media.

ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES Rule 3.08.

A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain

professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel.

The judge is the administrator of his court. He is responsible for the administrative management thereof. He supervises the court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of business in his court.

Request of Judge Eduardo F. Cartagena, A.M. no. 95-9-98-MCTC, December 4, 1997

Requests for permission to travel abroad on official time should not be presumed granted by the Supreme Court. Xxx xxx A judge who departs for abroad without the knowledge, let alone the permission, of the Court violates Memorandum Order No. 264 which mandates the requests for permission to travel abroad from members and employees of the judiciary should be obtained from the Supreme Court.

Buenaventura vs. Benedicto, 38 SCRA 71

The Supreme Court found the inclination of the respondent judge to leniency in the administrative supervision of his employees an undesirable trait.

Shan vs. Aguinaldo, 117 SCRA 32

For his failure to perform his duties, the judge cannot use as excuse the negligence or malfeasance of his own employees.

Nidua vs. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581

The employees are not guardians of the judge’s responsibilities.

Instead of being obstructive, he should help facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel. He must coordinate and cooperate with the other judges specially judges of higher courts and other judges gearing toward an efficient and prompt dispensation of justice.

Ysasi vs. Fernandez, 26 SCRA 395

Judges should respect the orders and decisions of an appellate court. Refusal to honor and injunctive order of the Supreme Court constitutes contempt.

Hernandez vs. Colayco, 64 SCRA 480

Vivo vs. Cloribel, 18 SCRA 713

They should take cognizance of settled rulings of the Supreme Court.

De Leon vs. Salvador, 36 SCRA 567

Judges should not interfere with the orders and decisions of judges of co-equal courts. Rule 3. 09.

A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of burdens, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.