Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARLOS MENDOZA v. NICOLAS TIONGSON

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AM No. P-04-1875 2008-02-06	EMILIANO MALABANAN v. NIÑO R. METRILLO
What brings our judicial system into disrepute are often the actuations of a few erring court personnel peddling influence to party-litigants, creating the impression that decisions can be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the disillusionment of the public. This Court has never wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the so-called "bad eggs" in the judiciary. And whenever warranted by the gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an administrative case is meted to erring personnel.[1] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	AM NO. P-07-2294 2007-08-07	JUDGE ANATALIO S. NECESARIO v. MYNER B. DINGLASA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Martinez v. Zoleta,[8] we find the need and occasion to rule that a resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.[9] Moreover, the Court should not and will not tolerate future indifference of respondents to administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaints. It constitutes gross insubordination as would warrant disciplinary sanction by the Supreme Court.[10]
	AM NO. P-06-2216 2007-04-20	SAMMY RODRIGUEZ v. JAIME C. EUGENIO PER CURIAM
SECTION 2. Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit on any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift shall influence their official actions. What brings our judicial system into disrepute are often the actuations of a few erring court personnel peddling influence to party-litigants, creating the impression that decisions can be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the disillusionment of the public. This Court has never wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the so-called "bad eggs" in the judiciary. And whenever warranted by the gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an administrative case is meted to erring personnel.[30]
	AM No. P-99-1347 2001-02-06	JUDGE PANCRACIO N. ESCANAN v. INOCENTES M. MONTEROLA II PER CURIAM
As held in Caña vs. Santos,[20] "(p)ersons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service. The conduct of every personnel connected with the courts, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should at all times be circumspect to preserve the integrity and dignity of our courts of justice." Respondent as court employee, is required to conduct himself with propriety and decorum, in order that his actions will be beyond suspicion.[21]