This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-03-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The above definition was to be reiterated in Ajeno v. Judge Inserto,[7] where the Court wrote: In the case of In re [Horrilleno], 43 Phil. 212, this Court previously ruled that "For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules." Of similar tenor is the definition provided in Jamsani-Rodriguez v. Ong:[8] | |||||