This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-07-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We find the inclination of the respondent judge to leniency in the administrative supervision of his employees an undesirable trait. Oftentimes, such leniency provides the court employees the opportunity to commit minor transgressions of the laws and slight breaches of official duty ultimately leading to vicious delinquencies. The respondent judge should constantly keep a watchful eye on the conduct of his employees. He should realize that big start small. His constant scrutiny of the behavior of his employees would deter any abuse on the part of the latter in the exercise of their duties. Then, his subordinates would know that any misdemeanor will not remain unchecked.[34] Applying the aforesaid pronouncement by analogy, petitioner in the instant case was indeed lenient in the implementation of the rules on attendance. Mr. Geocadin took advantage of this leniency by taking unauthorized undertime with PPA in order to attend to his duties with Napocor. Since such act remained unchecked for almost seven (7) months, Mr. Geocadin was not deterred from continuing his unlawful act, to the prejudice of the government and the taxpayers. | |||||
|
2008-06-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| OCA Circular No. 7-2003 states that court personnel should indicate in their bundy cards the truthful and accurate times of their arrival at, and departure from, the office. In Garcia v. Bada[13] and Servino v. Adolfo ,[14] the Court held that court employees must follow the clear mandate of OCA Circular No. 7-2003. Indeed, all judicial employees must devote their official time to government service and exercise a high degree of professionalism.[15] | |||||
|
2008-02-06 |
|||||
| While Judge Mabutin claims that he is laden with heavy caseload, such fact cannot exculpate him from liability. A judge should constantly keep a watchful eye on the conduct of his employees as his constant scrutiny of the behavior of his employees would deter any abuse on the part of the latter in the exercise of their duties. His subordinates would then know that any misdemeanor will not remain unchecked.[37] | |||||