JUDICIAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

JURISPRUDENCE ON THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

SUBMITTED TO:
JUDGE MA. THERESA
ARCEGA

SUBMITTED BY:
AFAN, MA. ELIZABETH RODELAS
GLORIA, CARLO CRIS
MAGALIT, GEM KAREN
PASCUA, LE BON EIRRES
QUINTOS, LOUISA
SIOSON, MINETTE

Canon 1 Sioson, Minette L.

Judge Napoloeon E. Inoturan, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133 Makati City, vs.
Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid, San
Enrique-Pulupandan Negros Occidental, Respondent. A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362
February 22, 2011
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Sancho E. Guinanao, Complainant, vs. Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco Jr., Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid, San Enrique-Pulupandan Negros Occidental,
Respondent. A.M No. MTJ -11-1785
Facts: Two consolidated cases were filed against Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr. as the
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Valladolid, San EnriquePulupandan, Negros Occidental. The first case involved the failure of Judge Limsiaco to
comply with the directives of the Court ordering him to show cause why he should not
be administratively charged for approving the applications for bail of the accused and
ordering their release in the criminal cases filed with other courts. The second case
involved the failure of Judge Limsiaco to decide a case within the 90-day reglementary
period.
Issue: Whether or not respondent violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held: A resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative
complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a
mere request from the Court. Nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or
selectively.
As demonstrated by his present acts, Judge Limsiaco failed to heed the above
pronouncements. In A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362, Judge Limsiaco did not fully obey the Court
directives. Judge Limsiaco failed to file the required comment to the show cause
resolution despite several opportunities given to him by the Court. His disobedience was
aggravated by his insincere representations in his motions for extension of time that he
would file the required comments.
The records also showed Judge Limsiacos failure to comply with the decision and
orders. In A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362, Judge Limsiaco failed to file his comment/answer to the
charge of irregularity pertaining to his approval of applications for bail in several criminal
cases before him. He also failed to pay the P40,000.00 fine imposed by way of
administrative penalty for his gross ignorance of the law and procedure and violations of
the Code of Judicial Conduct. Incidentally, in A.M. No. MTJ-11-1785, Judge Limsiaco failed
to file his comment on the verified complaint despite several orders issued by the Court.

Compliance with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the Court is one of
the foremost duties that a judge accepts upon assumption to office. This duty is
verbalized in Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct:
SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial
duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence
of the Judiciary.
SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order
to reinforce public confidence in the Judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance
of judicial independence.
The obligation to uphold the dignity of his office and the institution which he
belongs to is also found in Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct under Rule 2.01
which mandates a judge to behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Under the circumstances, the conduct exhibited by Judge Limsiaco constituted no
less than clear acts of defiance against the Courts authority. His conduct also revealed
his deliberate disrespect and indifference to the authority of the Court, shown by his
failure to heed our warnings and directives. Judge Limsiacos actions further disclosed
his inability to accept instructions. Moreover, his conduct failed to provide a good
example for other court personnel, and the public as well, in placing significance to the
Courts directives and the importance of complying with them.
In addition given the factual circumstances in A.M. No. MTJ-11-1785, the
considerable delay Judge Limsiaco incurred in deciding the subject ejectment case has
been clearly established by the records and by his own admission. Judge Limsiaco
admitted that he decided the ejectment case only on February 4, 2008. Thus, it took
Judge Limsiaco more than two (2) years to decide the subject ejectment case after it
was declared submitted for resolution.
The delay in deciding a case within the reglementary period constitutes a violation
of Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates judges to
perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly
and with promptness. In line with jurisprudence, Judge Limsiaco was also liable for gross
inefficiency for his failure to decide a case within the reglementary period.
The Court cannot allow this type of behavior especially on a judge. Public
confidence in the judiciary can only be achieved when the court personnel conduct
themselves in a dignified manner befitting the public office they are holding. They
should avoid conduct or any demeanor that may tarnish or diminish the authority of the
Supreme Court.
Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., was held to be administratively liable for unethical
conduct and gross inefficiency under the provisions of the New Code of Judicial Conduct,
specifically, Sections 7 and 8 of Canon 1, and Section 5 of Canon 6. For these infractions,
all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits if any shall be forfeited. And he
shall be barred from re-employment in any branch or service of the government,
including government-owned and controlled corporations.

Canon 2 Afan, Ma. Elizabeth R.

CRISELDA C. GACAD, complainant, vs. JUDGE HILARION P. CLAPIS, JR., Regional
Trial Court, Branch 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley, respondent
[A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257. July 7, 2012.]
Facts: Petitioner Criselda C. Gacad went to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in
Nabunturan, Compostela Valley, to file criminal charges against the suspect who
gunned down he brother. She met provincial prosecutor Graciano Arafol, Jr. (Arafol)
who advised her not to hire a private counsel. The following day, Arafol informed
Gacad that he filed a complaint for murder against the suspect but the he kept on
pressuring her about her brothers case, suggesting that they see Judge Clapis so he
would deny the Motion for Reinvestigation to be filed by the accused Rodolfo Comania
(accused). Arafol, further, told Gacad to prepare an amount of P50,000 for Judge
Clapis.
Thereafter, Gacad met with Arafol and Judge Clapis at the Golden Palace Hotel in
Tagum City. Arafol told Judge Clapis, Judge sya yong sinasabi kong kapitbahay ko
may problema. Judge Clapis replied, So, what do you want me to do? Afarol
answered, Kailangang madeny ang reinvestigation ni Atty. Gonzaga and we proceed
to trial kasi palaging tumatawag si Governor. Arafol paused, and continued, Wag
kang mag-alala judge, mayron syang inihanda para sa iyo. Gacad had not yet agreed
to Arafols demands, hence, when Arafol asked her when she can give the money,
Gacad answered that she will try to look for money. Judge Clapis excitedly nodded and
told her to leave it all to him, and they shall crush them. The following day, Gacad gave
P50,000 to her driver which was eventually taken by Arafol on the way to Mikos
Coffee Bar, where he met with Judge Clapis.

After showing to Gacad a copy of Judge Clapis Order denying the Motion for
Reinvestigation filed by the accused, Arafol told Gacad that Judge Clapis was borrowing
P50,000 from her for his mothers hospitalization, payment of which was secured by a
postdated BPI check signed by the judge. However, Gacad failed to produce the
P50,000. Gacad alleged that, from then on, Arafol and Judge Clapis began to play
different hideous schemes to prejudice their case. Judge Clapis set hearings on three
different occasions, where the Notices for Hearings were mailed at a later date. Also,
Judge Clapis set a hearing for a petition for bail , which Gacad came to know only
inadvertently since she received no notice for the hearing. Gacad then filed a verified
complaint against the said judge.
OCA agreed with the findings of the Investigating Justice that Judge Clapis
violated Canon 1 (Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02) and Canon 2 (Rule 2.01) of the Code of
Judicial Conduct. The OCA also found Judge Clapis liable for gross ignorance of the law
for failing to observe the rules in hearing the petition for bail and to accord the
prosecution due process.
Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of violating Canon 2 (Rule 2.01) of the
Code of Judicial Conduct
Held:
The acts of Judge Clapis in meeting Gacad, a litigant in a case pending
before his sala, and telling her, Sige, kay ako na bahala gamuson nato ni sila (Okay,
leave it all to me, we shall crush them.), both favoring Gacad, constitute gross
misconduct.
For grave or gross misconduct to exist, the judicial act complained of should be
corrupt or inspired by the intention to violate the law, or a persistent disregard of wellknown rules. Judge Clapis wrongful intention and lack of judicial reasoning are made
overt by the circumstances on record. First, the Notices of Hearings were mailed to
Gacad only after the hearing. Second, Judge Clapis started conducting the bail
hearings without an application for bail and granted bail without affording the
prosecution the opportunity to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. Third,
Judge Clapis set a preliminary conference seven months from the date it was set,
patently contrary to his declaration of speedy trial for the case. Judge Clapis cannot
escape liability by shifting the blame to his court personnel.
The arbitrary actions of respondent judge, taken together, give doubt as to his
impartiality, integrity and propriety. His acts amount to gross misconduct
constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly:
CANON 2. INTEGRITY IS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY TO THE PROPER DISCHARGE
OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE BUT ALSO TO THE PERSONAL DEMEANOR OF JUDGES.
Section 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
Canon 3 Gloria, Carlo Cris V.
Cabasares vs. Judge Filemon Tandinco
Facts: Complainant Cabasares filed a complaint for Malicious Mischief against a certain
Rodolfo Hebaya. The case was filed last Feb. 21, 1994. On Feb 27, 2002, the case had
been submitted for decision, but respondent judge had not yet rendered a decision by
the time the administrative complaint against him was filed last November 6, 2009.
In his comment to the administrative complaint charged against him, respondent
judge claimed that he only knew of the complaint filed against him last December 7,
2009. Also from December 10-13, 2014, he was confined in a hospital due to high blood
pressure. He was also on leave from December 14-17, 2009, and only resumed work on
the following day. Since it was Christmas time, and due to his heavy workload, the judge
reasoned out that the case slipped his mind. However, the judge justified that a decision
was later on prepared and promulgated on January 14, 2010. He therefore prayed that
his explanation be deemed sufficient considering that he is already retired as of January
15, 2010.

The Office of Court Administrator (OCA) who first took cognizance of the case
found the explanation of respondent judge inexcusable. The OCA recommended that the
respondent judge be adjudged guilty of Undue Delay in rendering a decision therefore
violating Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and be fined in an amount of
20K.
Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of violating Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held: Yes. The Court noted that Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
enjoins judges to dispose of their business promptly and to decide cases within the
required period. The Court also noted that no less than the Constitution provides in
Section 15, Article VIII, that lower courts should decide or resolve cases or matters for
decision or final resolution within 3 months from the date of submission.
The Court pointed out that in this case, respondent Judge failed to render a
decision within the reglementary period or to even ask for an extension of time. The
Court stated that when a judge sees circumstances that would justify delay in the
disposition of cases, all he has to do is to simply ask the Court for an extension of time,
citing a justified explanation for such a request. Respondent judge failed to avail of this
remedy.
The Court cannot accept respondent judges explanation that he failed to render
the decision because he required medical attention. The case had long been due for
decision before he was even hospitalized. Furthermore, his reasoning that the case may
have escaped his mind because of his heavy workload and because it is near Christmas
time only shows that respondent Judge failed to adopt an effective court management
system to carefully track the cases for decision or resolution.
The Court found respondent judge guilty for violating Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct. Since the Judge is already retired, the only alternative penalty
to be imposed is a fined of 11K to be deducted from his
Canon 4 Magalit, Gem Karen
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2124 August 27, 2009 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2631-RTJ]
JUDGE RIZALINA T. CAPCO-UMALI, RTC, Br. 212, Mandaluyong
City, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE PAULITA B. ACOSTA-VILLARANTE, RTC, Br. 211, Mandaluyong
City, Respondent.
Ponente: Carpio Morales, J.
Facts: Judge Capco-Umali stated that after having been designated by the Supreme
Court a new executive judge and vice-executive judge, Judge Cancino-Erum and herself
agreed to pay a courtesy call/visit to Mayor Gonzales II of Mandaluyong City. They were
warmly greeted until the topic switched to low allowance. Judge Cancino-Erum showed
Mayor Gonzales the payroll for month of April 2007 for early approval considering most
judges would take their vacation. Mayor Gonzales noticed that Judge Acosta-Villarante
was receiving additional three thousand pesos (P 3,000.00) on top of her regular
allowance as Executive Judge and additional five thousand pesos (P 5,000.00) on top of
her allowance as Acting Judge of Br. 209 and that Judge Cancino-Erum and Judge CapcoUmali were also receiving additional two thousand pesos (P 2,000.00) on top of their
allowances. Judge Cancino-Erum replied stating that for their part, Judge Villarante
requested for it and it was approved by said Mayor. The Mayor however, replied that he
had no idea of said increase.
On the day of the Monthly Judges Meeting, when the topic of local allowance had
been touched, Judge Acosta Villarante said, Kayo, simula ng maupo sa pwesto, wala ng
ginawa kundi kutkutin at maghanap ng evidencia para ako masira, nagsusumbong,
nagmamanman. Wala naman pakialaman sa allowance kanya kanya yan dapat. Judge

Capco-Umali tried to explain their side but Judge Acosta-Villarante kept talking too much
and even shouting at the top of her voice towards the former visibly irked by the
formers revelation and calling her a liar repeatedly. Judge Capco-Umali once stated that,
Matanda ka na, halos malapit ka na sa kamatayan gumagawa ka pa ng ganyan,
madadamay pa kami to which Judge Acosta-Villarante replied, Bog, sana mangyari sa
iyo, bog! Judge Capco-Umali welcomed the challenge and replied,Handa akong
mamatay kahit anong oras dahil wala akong ginagawang masama.
Judge Acosta-Villarante then wrote a memorandum to Judge Cancino-Erum about
said incident stating that Judge Capco-Umali marred the event by conduct very
unbecoming of a judge by uttering unsavory remarks and epithets or words of the same
import designed to humiliate herself.
Due to the stated memorandum, Judge Capco-Umali filed a complaint for Libel
against Judge Acosta-Villarante before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong
City. On the other hand, Judge Acosta-Villarante filed an Administrative Complaint
against Judge Capco-Umali for violating Canon 4, Sections 1 and 2 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct and a complaint for Grave Oral Defamation and Grave Threats before
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City.
The OCA recommended that Judges Capco-Umali and Acosta-Villarante be fined in
the amount of P 11,000.00 and P 16,000.00, respectively.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Acosta-Villarante violated Canon 4, Sections 1 and 2 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held: The Court upheld the decision of OCA. The OCA stated that both have individual
liabilities in violation of Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which
enunciates the rule that
Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their
acitivies.
Judge Capco-Umali failed to live up to the standard of propriety entrenched in the
aforequoted code of conduct. While, she might have been provoked by Judge AcostaVillarantes referral to her as a liar, she should have maintained her composure instead
of shouting back at a fellow judge. She should have exercised self-restraint instead of
reacting in such a very inappropriate manner considering that she is in the presence of
fellow Judges and other employees of RTC, Mandaluyong City. She should have put more
consideration and effort on preserving the solemnity of the said meeting, and on giving
those who are present the courtesy and respect they deserved.
Judge Acosta-Villarante should also be required to answer for her failure to
observe the basic norm of propriety demanded from a judge in relation with the
aforementioned 23 March 2007 incident. At the outset, it was Judge Acosta-Villarantes
unseemly behavior, calling Judge Capco-Umali sinungaling in front of their fellow
Judges that initiated the altercation between the two Judges. Judge Acosta-Villarante
should have been more cautious in choosing the words to address the already volatile
situation with Judge Capco-Umali.
Courts are looked upon by the people with high respect. Misbehavior by judges
and employees necessarily diminishes their dignity. Any fighting or misunderstanding is
a disgraceful occurrence reflecting adversely on the good image of the Judiciary. By
fighting within the court premises, respondent judges failed to observe the proper
decorum expected of members of the Judiciary. More detestable is the fact that their
squabble arose out of a mere allowance coming from the local government.

Canon 5 Quintos, Louisa

DOROTEO M. SALAZAR, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANTONIO D. MARIGOMEN,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu, respondent.
[A.M. No. RTJ-06-2004. October 19, 2007.]
Facts: Zenaida F. Salazar, wife of complainant, and a mayoralty candidate in the
Municipality of Madridejos, Cebu in the May 2001 elections, filed on July 4, 2001 an
election protest against the proclaimed winner Lety Mancio (Mancio) before the Regional
Trial Court, Bogo, Cebu.
The election case was first heard by then Acting Presiding Judge Jesus S. dela
Pea who, on April 1, 2002, issued an order directing the revision of the contested
ballots in the premises of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) where
the ballot boxes were being kept. Respondent took over and started presiding over the
election case on June 3, 2002.
By Decision of August 8, 2003, respondent dismissed the election protest and
declared Mancio as the duly elected municipal mayor of Madridejos, Cebu with total
votes of 5,214.
On appeal, the COMELEC First Division, by Resolution of March 25, 2004, reversed
and set aside the August 8, 2003 Decision of respondent and declared complainant's
wife Zenaida Salazar as the duly elected mayor.
Petitioners Contention: Respondent's partiality was, by complainant's claim, shown
in several instances, viz: When protestant Zenaida Salazar objected to the presentation
of the plain photocopies of the contested ballots, respondent ordered his Clerk of Court
to coordinate with counsel for protestee and to testify for her; and respondent allowed
Atty. Reinerio Roeles, the co-counsel for the protestee, to testify despite the protestant's
objection on the ground that his testifying would be a violation of professional ethics and
despite respondent's citation of authorities on the matter.
Complainant further claims that respondent was acting as if he were the counsel
for the protestee, demonstrated during the testimony of the Clerk of Court when
protestee's counsel had difficulty explaining the nature of the clerk's testimony and
respondent laid the basis thereof.
Complainant additionally claims that respondent was "too liberal and tolerant of
the maneuverings and manipulations of the protestee," thereby dragging the
proceedings which started on July 4, 2001 (when it was filed) up to August 8, 2003

(when it was decided), in violation of the period provided by the Omnibus Election Code.
Respondents Contention: In his Comment, respondent proffers that complainant is
not the real party in interest and, in any event, the complaint is moot and academic as
the election protest had been decided on appeal by the COMELEC; and if errors were
committed, "they pertain to the exercise of his adjudicative functions [which] cannot be
corrected through administrative proceedings."
On the charge of conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service, respondent
disclaims any intentional delay of the proceedings on his part.
Finally, respondent maintains that his decision clearly stated the facts and the law
on which it was based, and if there are errors therein, they are correctible by judicial
remedies and not by administrative proceedings.
Issue: Whether or not respondent Judge violated Sec.2 of Canon 5 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct, which states Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties,
by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
Held: Yes, respondent judge violated Canon 5 and gross ignorance of the law. The
admission of the uncertified or plain photocopies of the contested ballots by respondent
Judge in favor of Mancio betrays his ignorance of Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court. The Rule, otherwise known as the Best Evidence Rule, simply provides that as
long as the original evidence can be had, the court should not receive in evidence that
which is substitutionary in nature, such as photocopies, in the absence of any clear
showing that the original writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in
court.
Respondent judge's bias for Mancio was further shown by respondent judge when
he allowed one of the counsels for Mancio, Atty. Reinerio Roiles, to testify despite the
vigorous objection of Salazar through his counsel, as the testimony was in violation of
Rule 12.08, Canon 12 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility.
The Court finds the evaluation of the case by the OCA in order. Respondent's
questioned acts do not conform to the following pertinent canons of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which took effect on June 1, 2004.
CANON 3IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies
not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is
made.
SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or
prejudice.
SEC. 2.Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court,
maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and
litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
xxx xxx xxx
CANON 5EQUALITY
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 2.Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or
conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
Court finds respondent, JUDGE ANTONIO D. MARIGOMEN, GUILTY of 1) gross
ignorance of the law or procedure and is FINED in the amount of Twenty Five Thousand
(P25,000) Pesos, and 2) manifest bias and dishonesty amounting to grave misconduct
and is FINED in the amount of Twenty Five Thousand (P25,000) Pesos.

Canon 6- Pascua, Le Bon Eirres R.

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Fernando Fuentes III
AM. No. RTJ-13-2342
Perez, J.
Facts: The judicial audit report of the team from the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) revealed that as of 13 June 2011, the aforementioned court had 272 (138 criminal
and 134 civil) pending cases in its docket. Of these cases, 83 (24 criminal and 59 civil)
were deemed submitted for decision. The report also revealed that of the cases
submitted for decision, 70 were already beyond the reglementary period to decide, with
some cases submitted for decision as far back as 2003. Further, 31 of these 70 cases
were appealed from the first level courts, with two criminal cases involving detention
prisoners.
On 22 August 2011, the Court resolved, among others, to direct Presiding Judge
Fuentes III to cease and desist from hearing cases in his court and devote his time in
deciding cases and resolving pending incidents or motions, resolve the 27 pending
incidents or motions, and to explain in writing, within 15 days from notice why no
administrative sanction should be taken against him for his failure to decide or resolve
the 83 cases.
In his letter dated 7 October 2011, Judge Fuentes III explained that he is offering
no justification for the adverse findings of the audit team. He alleged that the cases
submitted for decision have always been reflected in the monthly reports of cases he is

submitting to the Court. He averred that he is not a resident of Bohol but of Ozamis City.
Thus, he had to go home from time to time upon proper leave to visit his family which
process has affected his health and has greatly hampered his case disposition.
In a letter dated 16 July 2012, Judge Fuentes III made another request for
extension of time from the given 16 April 2012 deadline to fully comply with the
directive to submit copies of the remaining decisions and resolutions. He explained that
his failure to decide the cases within the extended period was for the reason that his
youngest son, Michael Philip Fuentes, an autistic child, became sick and had to be
hospitalized for almost the whole month of March in Ozamis City. He, thereafter, had to
go on leave for several days in March and June 2012 to bring his son to Manila for
further treatment.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Fuentes violated Section 5, Canon 6 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
Held: Yes. Under the 1987 Constitution, trial judges are mandated to decide and resolve
cases within 90 days from submission for decision or resolution. Corollary to this
constitutional mandate, Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary requires judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly, and
with reasonable promptness. The mandate to promptly dispose of cases or matters also
applies to motions or interlocutory matters or incidents pending before the magistrate.
Unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms
of judicial conduct and constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an
administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate. The Court remains
sympathetic to seasonably filed requests for extension of time to decide cases.
Unfortunately, no such requests were made by Judge Fuentes III until the judicial audit
was conducted by the OCA and a directive was issued to him by the Court. The Court
exhorts all judges to perform their judicial duties with reasonable promptness because
the honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by the fairness and
correctness of the decisions rendered, but also by the expediency with which disputes
are resolved.