This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-10-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Like Dumduma, the dismissed employee in Re: Tessie G. Quires[44] also maintained that she was merely a victim of fixers operating within the CSC Office. The Court did not accede to her pleas and meted the prescribed penalty for dishonesty. | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In falsification by false narration of facts, (1) the offender makes untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (2) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; (3) the facts narrated are absolutely false; and (4) it was made with a wrongful intent to injure a third person.[72] None of these elements exists in this case. | |||||
|
2010-01-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "Intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion. It is also understood to imply a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray."[15] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| This Court has in the past punished similar infractions pertaining to making untruthful statements in the PDS with the severe penalty of dismissal such as failing to state previous employment and the fact of separation for cause therefrom,[17] falsely declaring passing the career service professional examination when in fact one did not,[18] and neglecting to declare the pendency of a criminal case.[19] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The respondent's statement in his counter-affidavit filed with the CSC - that he did not tamper with his brother's report of rating and that the inadvertent inclusion of the same together with his application papers submitted to the Court was unintentional - contradicts the verified statements he made in his PDS that he is a Career Service Sub-Professional eligible. Eventually, he had to own up to the falsification when he was left with no other option. All these acts are contrary to the Court's oft-repeated reminder that dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. Public office is a public trust; public officers and employees, particularly those involved in the dispensation of justice - from the highest to the lowest in rank - must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty, and diligence in their service.[4] | |||||
|
2008-09-22 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Dishonesty has been defined as intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion. It is also understood to imply a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[12] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making a false statement on any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, appointment or registration.[8] Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects a person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity. It is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary, as no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the judiciary.[9] | |||||