This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-05-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission,[48] cited by CSC, we did not consider length of service in favor of the private respondent; instead, we took it against said respondent because her length of service, among other things, helped her in the commission of the offense. | |||||
|
2009-04-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Abduction with consent[37] Bigamy[38] Concubinage[39] Smuggling[40] Rape[41] Estafa through falsification of a document[42] Attempted Bribery[43] Profiteering[44] Robbery[45] Murder, whether consummated or attempted[46] Estafa[47] Theft[48] Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker[49] Violation of BP Bldg. 22[50] Falsification of Document[51] Intriguing against Honor[52] Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law[53] Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)[54] Perjury[55] Forgery[56] Direct Bribery[57] Frustrated Homicide[58] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Other analogous circumstances (emphasis ours) In University of the Philippines vs. Civil Service Commission, et al.,[27] we did not consider length of service in favor of the private respondent; instead, we took it against said respondent because her length of service, among other things, helped her in the commission of the offense. Thus:Respondent Commission contends that it did not err in upholding the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board since the decision of said Board took into account private respondent's length of service and the fact that it was her first offense. We do not Agree. . . Private respondent's length of service cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since it was her length of service, among others, that earned her the position she was in and the trust she enjoyed through which she illicitly allowed her relatives to enjoy unmerited privileges and, in the case of Fernando B. Manicad, an unwarranted diploma. (emphasis ours) Moreover, a review of jurisprudence shows that, although in most cases length of service is considered in favor of the respondent,[28] it is not considered where the offense committed is found to be serious.[29] Thus, in Yuson vs. Noel,[30] we ruled: | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent Commission contends that it did not err in upholding the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board since the decision of said Board took into account private respondent's length of service and the fact that it was her first offense. We do not Agree. . . Private respondent's length of service cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since it was her length of service, among others, that earned her the position she was in and the trust she enjoyed through which she illicitly allowed her relatives to enjoy unmerited privileges and, in the case of Fernando B. Manicad, an unwarranted diploma. (emphasis ours) Moreover, a review of jurisprudence shows that, although in most cases length of service is considered in favor of the respondent,[28] it is not considered where the offense committed is found to be serious.[29] Thus, in Yuson vs. Noel,[30] we ruled:The mere length of his service (for ten years) cannot mitigate the gravity of his offense or the penalty he deserves. It is clear from facts here established that the respondent does not deserve to remain in the Judiciary, where integrity is an indispensable credential. (emphasis ours) And, in Concerned Employee vs. Nuestro,[31] we held: | |||||