This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-08-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it will neither tolerate nor condone any conduct which would violate the norms of public accountability, and diminish the faith of the people in the justice system.[22] A judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty.[23] He should ever strive to preserve the good name of the court on which he sits and avoid any indiscretion that will defile its probity.[24] Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary. Canon 2 of the same code requires him to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Because of his actuations, respondent has impaired the image of the judiciary. Rather than keep it at all times unsullied, always worthy of the people's trust, he has damaged it beyond easy repair. He is guilty of gross misconduct for misappropriating money entrusted to him by litigants in connection with a case pending in his court. No less importantly, the respondent has also caused pecuniary damage to complainant, who has yet to recover the sum entrusted to respondent. | |||||