Does delay in the transcription of stenographic notes or additional assignments or designations excuses the failure of a judge to render decisions within the mandate periods?

The Court has consistently emphasized the need for judges to decide cases within the mandated periods. The failure of a judge to render a decision within such time constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires that a judge dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. It amounts to gross inefficiency and warrants administrative sanction.

That the transcript of stenographic notes in cases already deemed submitted for decision has not yet been completed does not excuse such failure. This Court has directed judges 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 argument that such notes are not official would not relieve judges of their duty to render a decision within the required periods. The solution is not to await the transcription of the stenographic notes but for the judge to pay careful attention to the proceedings and take accurate notes.

Finally, the additional assignments or designations imposed upon respondent Judge does not make him less liable for the delay. Respondent Judge should have known that if his caseload prevented the disposition of cases within the reglementary period, all he had to do was to ask from this Court for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of the cases involved. The Court, cognizant of the caseload of judges and mindful of the difficulty encountered by them in the seasonable disposition of cases, would almost always grant the request. (Gonzales-Decano v. Judge Siapno, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279, March 1, 2001)