This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-12-20 |
|||||
| A court stenographer performs a function essential to the prompt and fair administration of justice.[10] The conduct of every person connected with the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.[11] All public officers are accountable to the people at all times. Their duties and responsibilities must be strictly performed. As administration of justice is a sacred task, this Court condemns any omission or act which would tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[12] Every employee or officer involved in the dispensation of justice should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility and their conduct must, at all times, be above suspicion.[13] A public office is indeed a public trust, and a court stenographer, without doubt, violates this trust by failing to fulfill his duties.[14] | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "Public office is a public trust. All public officers are accountable to the people at all times. Their duties and responsibilities must be strictly performed. As administration of justice is a sacred task, this Court condemns any omission or act which would tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. Every employee or officer involved in the dispensation of Justice should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility and his conduct must, at all times, be above suspicion."[12] Respondent sheriff did not offer any reason for his misconduct, despite the opportunity given to him to explain his absences. He maintained his silence even when the Court dropped him from the service effective September 1, 1999.[13] | |||||