This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-09-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Based on the findings of the OCA, Baterbonia failed to measure up to the standards of conduct prescribed for her office. As an accountable employee charged with the safekeeping of fees collected from litigants and the rest of the public dealing with the court she was serving, she was expected to exercise honesty and fidelity in the discharge of that duty of safekeeping because she would thereby ensure the flow of judicial funds so essential to the orderly administration of justice.[10] Yet, she frequently violated the trust and confidence reposed in her position by committing serial acts of misappropriation of the funds she had received as fees that amounted to gross dishonesty. She thereby manifested a malevolent tendency to cheat the Judiciary of its funds. | |||||
|
2009-03-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Indeed, no position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from the occupant than does the judicial office. The safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to the goal of an orderly administration of justice, and no protestation of good faith can override the mandatory nature of the circulars designed to promote full accountability for government funds. The failure to remit the funds in due time amounts to dishonesty and grave misconduct, which the Court cannot tolerate for they diminish the people's faith in the judiciary. The act of misappropriating judiciary funds constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct which are punishable by dismissal from the service, even if committed for the first time.[25] | |||||