This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2006-08-26 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| Respondent's behavior was totally unbecoming a member of the judicial service and cannot be countenanced. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees requires public employees to respect at all times the rights of others and to refrain from acts contrary to good morals and good customs.[26] Indeed, it is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service.[27] | |||||
|
2006-08-26 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| Respondent's behavior was totally unbecoming a member of the judicial service and cannot be countenanced. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees requires public employees to respect at all times the rights of others and to refrain from acts contrary to good morals and good customs.[26] Indeed, it is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service.[27] | |||||
|
2006-06-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| soliciting for and/or receiving contributions, in cash or in kind, from any person, whether or not a litigant or lawyer, will be dealt with severely in accordance with the sanctions prescribed by law.[40] This broad interpretation is further supported by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards,[41] which is the law that prohibits solicitations by public officials and employees. Section 7 (d) of the code states thus: Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being | |||||
|
2006-06-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| a favor. In such a situation, the gift would fall outside the purview of RA 6713, which expressly provides that the term gift does not include an unsolicited gift of nominal or insignificant value[;] not given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee.[44] In this regard, we have pored over the records of the case and found no proof whatsoever that a solicitation took place. We then note that the cash gift of P1,500.00 was received not by respondent Lilia alone, but together with eleven other employees of Branch 28, to purchase | |||||
|
2006-04-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The strictest standards have always been valued in judicial service. Verily, everyone involved in the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is expected to live up to the strictest norm of competence, honesty and integrity in the public service.[9] This principle echoes what the Constitution enshrines: that a public office is a public trust, and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people; serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice; and lead modest lives.[10] Further, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that every public servant shall uphold public interest over and above personal interest at all times.[11] | |||||