The Supreme Court has discovered a former decide of a Davao courtroom responsible for failure to stop and desist from a case regardless of being ordered to take action by the Court of Appeals in October 2009.
In an 18-page decision promulgated on March 28, the Supreme Court en banc discovered the previous decide of the Davao City Regional Trial Court Branch 14 responsible of two counts of ignorance of the regulation, and one depend of gross misconduct.
Due to this, he was ordered to pay a fantastic of P700,000 inside a interval not exceeding three months from the date of the decision’s promulgation. Should the fantastic stay unpaid, the Court mentioned the quantity will probably be deducted from his accrued go away credit.
“Time and time once more, we have now held that ‘judges are expected to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them properly in all good faith. Judicial competence requires no less,” the Court said.
“When inefficiency springs from a failure to recognize such a basic and elemental rule, a law or a principle in the discharge of his functions, a judge is either too incompetent and underserving of the position and the prestigious title he [or she] holds or he [or she] is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of authority,” it added.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by a petroleum company against the judge after he refused to heed an injunction order because he believed that it has “no force and effect” since it was signed by only two members of the Court of Appeals division as the other members were on leave.
The firm also argued that the judge’s issuance of warrants of arrest towards financial institution officers for his or her reluctance to launch its garnished funds constitutes abuse of authority.
“In this case, Judge’s unceremonious issuance of a warrant of arrest pursuant to a summary citation for indirect contempt is evidently marred with grave abuse of judicial authority and gross ignorance of the law,” it mentioned.
According to the Court, the decide didn’t abide by the judicial norm that “judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial.”—LDF, GMA Integrated News
Source: www.gmanetwork.com
