Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-09-2197 2011-04-13	ANTONINO MONTICALBO v. JUDGE CRESCENTE F. MARAYA MENDOZA, J.
Although the Court will never tolerate or condone any conduct, act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the people's faith in the judiciary, it will not hesitate to protect an innocent court employee against any groundless accusation or administrative charge which has no basis in fact or law.[27] As succinctly put by Justice Quisumbing in the case of Francisco v. Leyva,[28]
	AM NO. 2006-02-SC 2007-10-15	ALEXANDER D.J. LORENZO v. ORLANDO NACHURA, J.
This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the Judiciary. But neither will we hesitate to shield the same employees from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.[11]
	AM No. RTJ-03-1760 2004-01-15	FELICIDAD B. DADIZON v. JUDGE ENRIQUE C. ASIS QUISUMBING, J.
When an administrative charge against a judge or any personnel of the court has no basis whatsoever, this Court will not hesitate to protect him against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial processes.[34] We will not shirk from our responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the Judiciary, but neither shall we hesitate to shield the same employees from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.[35]