This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-09-24 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts[23] as it negates malice or evil motive,[24] a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.[25] Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat. | |||||
|
2010-03-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Respondent Atty. Cariño is charged with dishonesty for allegedly falsifying her PDS. Dishonesty is 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."[8] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Respondent should be reminded that good faith necessitates honesty of intention, free from any knowledge of circumstances that ought to have prompted him to undertake an inquiry.[28] In the instant case, no good faith can be attributed to respondent. In the first place, it is not disputed that respondent's documents, specifically the PDS and SAL, were accomplished in 2005, when respondent's marriage had already been registered for years. Hence, at that time, respondent's excuse of uncertainty as to her marital status no longer existed. The only remaining conclusion is that she knowingly and maliciously concealed the fact of her marriage when she indicated that she was single. Secondly, assuming that the respondent has not yet registered her marriage to this day, we do not see how she can be free of any knowledge of circumstances that ought to have prompted her to undertake an inquiry as to whether or not she should declare herself to be either "married" or "single." As an employee of the Court, respondent had been exposed for decades to a world where legalisms and legalities yield the direst of consequences. Considering that she had the invaluable resource of being surrounded by the knowledgeable men and women of the bar and the bench, we are baffled how respondent could not have possibly questioned the consequences of her actions when she was already concealing information and lying under oath in her official documents. | |||||
|
2008-04-18 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under the laws governing civil service, dishonesty is classified as a grave offense the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction. A person aspiring to public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law. Nothing less is expected. This ideal standard ensures that only those of known probity, competence and integrity are called to the challenge of public service.[33] It is 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.[34] Dishonesty is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one's ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.[35] | |||||
|
2007-10-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that factual findings of administrative agencies, such as the CSC, that are affirmed by the CA, are conclusive upon and generally not reviewable by this Court.[6] | |||||
|
2007-07-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Complainant charges respondent with dishonesty and grave misconduct through falsification of his PDS. Dishonesty is 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."[8] Thus, dishonesty, like bad faith, is not simply bad judgment or negligence. Dishonesty is a question of intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the respondent, but also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment.[9] | |||||
|
2007-03-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| There is no merit to petitioner's claim of good faith in dealing with respondent. Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting "honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry;[33] an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render the transaction unconscientious."[34] Being privy to the pendency of the ejectment case involving the leasehold rights of R.C. Nicolas since he was impleaded as a party-defendant in said ejectment case, petitioner cannot feign innocence of the existence thereof. Petitioner was fully aware that R.C. Nicolas had a lease contract with respondent which was subject of a pending litigation. | |||||