This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2006-12-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| [17] Eamiguel v. Ho, 350 Phil. 518 (1998). | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The nature and responsibilities of public officers enshrined in the Constitution and oft-repeated in case law are not mere rhetorical words, not to be taken as idealistic sentiments but as working standards and attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds.[22] Time and again, this Court has stressed that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. They must, at all times, not only observe propriety and decorum; they must also be above suspicion.[23] Every official and employee of the Judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[24] | |||||
|
2005-02-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Notwithstanding the fact that respondent Limgas has already been dropped from the service effective 01 June 2004, we nevertheless impose on her the penalty of dismissal following our ruling in two cases[20] where we meted out the penalty of dismissal on the respondents despite being previously dropped from the service. | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent's office requires competence and efficiency to insure the public's confidence in the administration of justice.[9] The men and women who work in the judiciary must always act with propriety for the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct of its personnel.[10] | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Consequently, respondent sheriff neglected to perform his duties as Sheriff III to the detriment of litigants, lawyers, and even the court where he was employed. Respondent sheriff's act of absenting himself without leave seriously prejudiced public service.[11] | |||||