Judge Adoracion Angeles vs.Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Dy Facts: 1) Judge Sempio-Dy is the judge in criminal cases file by Judge Angeles 2) The promulgation was scheduled on 8 Sep 2008 but judge Dy moved it to 17 Sep because she has a scheduled medical consultation because of her neck ailment; she later moved it again to 17 Oct citing there are voluminous records to study; she reset it to 14 Nov because she had just recently arrived from a trip to the US ; A new extension was again asked with a nes promulgation date of 12 Dec. The judgment was promulgated on 12 Dec. 3) The accused in the cases were acquitted except for one policeman. 4) SPO1 Carino filed a Motion for Recon on 5 Jan 2009. However it was only on 30 July 2009 that Judge Dy issued an Order submitting the incident resolution. The Recon was denied for lack of merit on 24 Aug. 5) Judge Angeles said that the motion for extensions on the promulgation of the case were not in the files of the cases, the SC might not even have approved of the Motions for Extension; that Judge Dy could have scheduled her consultation at some other time other than the promulgation of the case. 6) Judge Angeles is also complaining about the amount of time that Judge Dy took before issuing an Order on the Motion for Recon 7) Judge Angeles filed charges respondent Judge Sempio Diy with Violations of Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution; Section 2, Canon 2 and Section 5 Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary; Rule 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct; Number 6 of the Code of Judicial Ethics; Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; Section 4 paragraph b of Republic Act No. 6713 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees; Falsification of Official Documents; and Dishonesty. Complainant urges the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to examine the numerous violations allegedly committed by the respondent and to make an assessment if, indeed, she is still worthy to wear the judicial robe or, if her continued presence on the bench would unduly tarnish the image of the judiciary. 8) Judge Dy said that her motions for extension were all approved by SC. She also attributes the delay on the Motion for Recon on the death threats that their branch received in 2009. 9) OCA recommended that Judge Dy be fined P2,000 for her late action on the motion for Recon and that she be warned. ISSUE: Should Judge Dy be punished for the delay? HELD: Judge DY was able to get the approval of SC in her motion for extension. She is not at fault about that. But Judge Dy cannot be excused for the delay in the Motion for Recon. She should have filed Motions for extension or made a journal for the cases that she was holding to ensure timely promulgation. Since it her first time, Judge Dy is Admonished for not observing the reglementary period. Violation of the basic tenets of judicial conduct embodied in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and the Code of Judicial Conduct constitutes a breach of Canons 1 and 12 as well as Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.