0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
222 vues2 pages
1) Lucia Magtibay filed a petition for involuntary dissolution of Olarte Hermanos y Cia before Judge Cader Indar's court. An intervention was filed by Mercedita Taguba-Dumlao.
2) Judge Indar ordered the DPWH to pay compensation to the heirs of Jose Olarte for a road right-of-way through company property. Lucia alleged Dumlao collected money through fraudulent misrepresentations.
3) Lucia and other heirs filed motions that Judge Indar left unresolved. When confronted, Judge Indar told them to file an administrative complaint.
4) The court found Judge Indar liable for undue delay in resolving motions and for
1) Lucia Magtibay filed a petition for involuntary dissolution of Olarte Hermanos y Cia before Judge Cader Indar's court. An intervention was filed by Mercedita Taguba-Dumlao.
2) Judge Indar ordered the DPWH to pay compensation to the heirs of Jose Olarte for a road right-of-way through company property. Lucia alleged Dumlao collected money through fraudulent misrepresentations.
3) Lucia and other heirs filed motions that Judge Indar left unresolved. When confronted, Judge Indar told them to file an administrative complaint.
4) The court found Judge Indar liable for undue delay in resolving motions and for
1) Lucia Magtibay filed a petition for involuntary dissolution of Olarte Hermanos y Cia before Judge Cader Indar's court. An intervention was filed by Mercedita Taguba-Dumlao.
2) Judge Indar ordered the DPWH to pay compensation to the heirs of Jose Olarte for a road right-of-way through company property. Lucia alleged Dumlao collected money through fraudulent misrepresentations.
3) Lucia and other heirs filed motions that Judge Indar left unresolved. When confronted, Judge Indar told them to file an administrative complaint.
4) The court found Judge Indar liable for undue delay in resolving motions and for
LUCIA O. MAGTIBAY, Complainant, v. JUDGE CADER P. INDAR, Al Haj., Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City, Respondent. PERALTA, J.: FACTS: Lucia Magtibay (Lucia) is one of the heirs of the late Jose Olarte, who was one of the original stockholders of Olarte Hermanos y Cia. Upon the death of the stockholders/owners, the surviving heirs, including Lucia, filed a Petition for Involuntary Dissolution of the company before the sala of Judge Cader Indar (Judge Indar). An Intervention was filed by Mercedita Taguba-Dumlao (Dumlao), acting as attorney-in-fact of one Vicente Olarte, who was allegedly an heir of the late Jose Olarte. Thereafter, the DPWH constructed a national highway that traversed within the property of Olarte Hermanos y Cia. Subsequently, Judge Indar ordered the DPWH to pay the partial consideration of the road right-of-way to the heirs of Jose Olarte. Lucia, however, claimed that Dumlao collected a huge amount of money from the DPWH as compensation for the road right-of-way claims of the heirs of Olarte Hermanos y Cia by fraudulent misrepresentations. Consequently, the heirs of Jose Olarte filed an Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, to enjoin the DPWH from entertaining any claims submitted by Dumlao. Judge Indar denied the application. Suspecting that Judge Indar was lawyering for Dumlao, Lucia and the other heirs filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition of Judge Indar. However, Judge Indar left the motion unresolved. Magtibays representative tried to secure some documents relative to the case but Judge Indar confronted them and said, "Denied na ung motion nyo. Ireklamo ninyo na ako ng administratibo sa Supreme Court at sila ang magsabi kung pwede ko kayong bigyan ng kopya ng records." Hence, Lucia filed the present administrative complaint. ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Indar should be held liable for Undue Delay in Rendering an Order and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge? HELD: Judge Indar is liable for Undue Delay in Rendering an Order and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge. LEGAL ETHICS: undue delay in rendering an order; conduct unbecoming of a judge On the charge of undue delay in resolving the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Inhibition, we agree that respondent judge should be liable thereto. Respondent judge admitted that he did not act on the motion pending before his court, albeit, he justified this by saying that his silence or inaction should be construed as denial. We do not agree. Even assuming that respondent judge did not find the motion to be meritorious, he could have simply acted on the said motions and indicated the supposed defects in his resolutions instead of just leaving them unresolved. Undue delay in the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary and unnecessarily blemishes its stature. No less than the Constitution mandates that lower courts must dispose of their cases promptly and decide them within three months from the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court concerned. In addition, a judge's delay in resolving, within the prescribed period, pending motions and incidents constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring judges to dispose of court business promptly. We likewise agree with the OCA's finding that respondent exhibited rude behavior in dealing with the public. Whether complainant and her counsel were entitled to the requested documents is not the issue, but the manner of how he declined the request. Certainly, his statement which he did not deny: "Huwag mo ng ituloy ang sasabihin mo kumukulo ang dugo sa inyo lumayas na kayo marami akong problema" does not speak well of his position as member of the bench. Court finds respondent CADER P. INDAR, Al Haj. GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering an Order and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge.