This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| "In the same vein, the presumption, disputable though it may be, that an official duty has been regularly performed applies in favor of [respondent Usec. Gutierrez.] Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta. (All things are presumed to be correctly and solemnly done). It is petitioner's burden to overcome this juris tantum presumption."[25] This, petitioner failed to do. Mere allegations will not suffice without proof that Usec. Gutierrez did not have the authority at the time she issued the assailed Resolution. | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that public office is a public trust.[38] When a public officer takes his oath of office, he binds himself to perform the duties of his office faithfully and to use reasonable skill and diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the discharge of his duties, he is to use that prudence, caution and attention which careful men use in the management of their affairs.[39] Public officials and employees are therefore expected to act with utmost diligence and care in discharging the duties and functions of their office. Unfortunately, respondent failed to measure up to this standard. Clearly, respondent should be held administratively liable for neglect of duty. | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We also do not find the actuations of respondents Ibarra and Juanito to be impelled by legal malice. Their commencement of the action against petitioner Rosemarie and her co-accused was pursuant to their duties as police officers. The same was made subsequent to the report of respondent Pilar of the commission of the crime, and the investigation on the person of petitioner Rosemarie. Even then, mistakes committed by a public officer are not actionable absent any clear showing that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith,[52] which was not established in the case at bar. | |||||