This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-10 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, this Court En Banc in Gannapao v. Civil Service Commission[26] ruled that:Time and again, we have held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as. applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. In the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process.[27] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2012-09-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In this case, as per the November 17, 2008 Memorandum of the OCA, Acedo rendered almost forty (40) years of service in the Judiciary, starting in January 1965 as a Clerk, then as a Stenographer, and later as Clerk of Court in 1979 until her retirement in January 2003. These facts, however, rather aggravate the offenses committed by Acedo. Length of service is an alternative circumstance which can mitigate or possibly even aggravate the penalty, depending on the circumstances of the case.[21] Acedo's almost forty (40) years of service should be taken against her. Having been accorded full trust and confidence for such a length of time, Acedo was expected to discharge her duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, which unfortunately she failed to do. | |||||