"x x x.
Delay in the resolution
of the motion for inhibition
We see no reason to deviate from the OCA’s findings, which stated thus:
x x x [R]espondent judge in his Order dated September 30, 2009, expunged from the records the said motion because the counsel of complainant failed to indicate the date of issue and number of his MCLE
Compliance as required by Bar Matter No. 1922. Said Order may therefore be considered as a denial of the Motion for Inhibition, which was issued within the 90-day period to resolve a motion.
The failure of respondent judge to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated September 30, 2009, which was filed on October 21, 2009, could not be attributable to him because on November 9, 2009, he received a directive from the Office of the Court Administrator to comment on the instant complaint. Since an order was issued on September 30, 2009 to expunge the Motion for Inhibition from the record of the case, and that on March 30, 2010, he eventually inhibited from the case, there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the respondent judge.
Judge Dacanay issued his Orders well within the three-month period imposed by Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution.
Judge Dacanay’s ocular inspection without notice to the parties constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, in violation of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. However, in view of the still unpaid fine of ₱11,000 in the September 2003 case of Cabahug v. Dacanay, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480, for which Judge Dacanay was found guilty of undue delay in resolving a motion, it would seem that Judge Dacanay has a cavalier attitude in the
performance of his judicial duties. For this reason, we increase the fine recommended by the OCA in the present case from P25,000 to P30,000. Judge Dacanay would well be reminded to behave at all times in a way that will promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the ju
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay is found guilty of committing conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in violation of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and is imposed a fine of P30,000. Judge Dacanay is directed to pay, within 15 days from notice of this Decision, this fine together with the fine imposed in A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480. Judge Dacanay is sternly warned that a repetition of the same or simi Jar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
x x x."
No comments:
Post a Comment