This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-01-28 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The Court has since applied the Arias ruling to determine not only criminal,[91] civil[92] and administrative[93] liability, but even the existence of probable cause to file an information[94] in the context of an allegation of conspiracy. | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his duty.[30] It implies a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness and straightforwardness.[31] | |||||
|
2009-08-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The evidence presented is enough to hold respondent guilty of the charge of immorality or disgraceful and immoral conduct. It is elementary that administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule.[14] Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[15] The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that the person indicted was responsible for the alleged wrongdoing or misconduct.[16] | |||||
|
2009-02-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As an administrative offense, dishonesty is defined as the 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.[53] It is the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his duties.[54] Dishonesty is considered as a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292[55] and Section 52(A)(1), Rule IV of Resolution No. 99-1936.[56] | |||||
|
2008-12-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Dishonesty is defined as "the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his duty."[21] The unsatisfactorily explained false entry of deposit in the amount of P1,019,535.21 on October 31, 1997 clearly constitutes dishonesty. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the second issue, in Alfonso v. Office of the President,[23] where this Court held that Arias was not applicable, we ruled that a public official's foreknowledge of facts and circumstances that suggested an irregularity constitutes an added reason to exercise a greater degree of circumspection before signing and issuing public documents.[24] By failing to prevent the irregularity that Cesa had reason to suspect all along or to take immediate steps to rectify, Cesa had tolerated the same and allowed it to wreak havoc on the coffers of the city. | |||||
|
2007-12-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The issuance of the original and owner's duplicate certificates are basic for the valid existence of the title. Issuance of additional copies are permissive and their non-existence does not affect the status of title. A certificate of title is deemed as regularly issued with the issuance of the original copy and owner's duplicate.[41] So was Professor Francisco Ventura: Immediately upon the issuance and entry of the decree of registration, the Commissioner of Land Registration sends a certified copy thereof, under seal of the said office, to the Register of Deeds of the province where the land lies, and the register of Deeds transcribes the decree in a book, called the Registration Book," in which a leaf, or leaves, in consecutive order should be devoted exclusively to each title. The entry made by the Register of Deeds in said book constitutes the original certificate of title and is signed by him and sealed with the seal of his office.[42] The same view came from Professor Narciso Peña, also a former Assistant Commissioner of the Land Registration Commission and Acting Register of Deeds of Manila, as he wrote, thus: Thus, Section 42 of Act No. 496 provides that the certificate first registered in pursuance of the decree of registration in regard to any parcel of land shall be entitled in the registration book "Original Certificate of Title, entered pursuant to decree of the Court of Land Registration, dated at (stating time and place of entry of decree and the number of the case). This certificate shall take effect upon the date of the transcription of the decree. Subsequent certificates relating to the same land shall be in like form, but shall be entitled. "Transfer from number (the number of the next previous certificate relating to the same land)," and also the words "Originally registered (date, volume, and page of registration).[43] The dissent has likewise suggested that the variance between these two dates is ultimately inconsequential. It cannot be so for otherwise, the recent decision of the Court in Alfonso v. Office of the President[44] would simply be wrong. In Alfonso, the Court precisely penalized Alfonso, the former register of deeds of Caloocan because she acquiesced to the change of the date of registration of OCT No. 994, as reflected in several subsequent titles purportedly derived from that mother title, from 3 May 1917 to 19 April 1917. If indeed the difference in dates were "inconsequential," then it should not have really mattered that Mrs. Alfonso, as found by the Court, had invariably issued certificates of title, reflecting either the 19 April or 3 May date, a circumstance which, the Court concluded, was irregular. But if the Court were to accede to the dissent and agree that it did not really matter whether the date of registration of OCT No. 994 was 3 May or 19 April, then poor Mrs. Alfonso should be spared of the penalty of dismissal from the service which the Court had already affirmed. | |||||