Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE : REPORT OF MR. DOMINADOR P. ITLIONG

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AM NO. 2007-09-SC 2007-07-12	RE: REPORT ON ALLEGED THEFT OF ELECTRICAL WIRES. NACHURA, J.
Mr. Pablo has violated the confidence reposed upon him by the Court[25] as chief of its Security Division. His utter lack of diligence to conduct further inquiry constituted dereliction of duty tantamount to negligence.[26] Moreover, his failure to properly supervise the conduct of his personnel effectively exacerbates his neglect of duty.
	AM NO. P-06-2216 2007-04-20	SAMMY RODRIGUEZ v. JAIME C. EUGENIO PER CURIAM
In Re: Criminal Case No. MC-02-5637 Against Arturo V. Peralta and Larry C. De Guzman, Employees of MeTC, Br. 31, Q. C.,[32] a clerk of court and a sheriff were dismissed from service for receiving marked money from a litigant in exchange for the execution of a writ.
	AM NO. P-05-1979 2006-11-27	JUDGE LEONARDO P. CARREON v. ERIC ANTHONY S. ORTEGA CARPIO, J.
Respondent had earlier misplaced a subpoena in another criminal case, after which he sought Judge Carreon's consideration. With that prior incident, respondent should not have repeated the error and should have more conscientiously performed his duties. As the present complaint demonstrates, however, respondent continued to neglect his tasks. It apparently did not matter to respondent that Judge Carreon had already repeatedly reprimanded him, or that he incurred an "unsatisfactory" rating in his performance. His conduct indeed reflects a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, constituting neglect of duty.[18]
	AM NO. P-05-1979 2006-11-27	JUDGE LEONARDO P. CARREON v. ERIC ANTHONY S. ORTEGA CARPIO, J.
Respondent had earlier misplaced a subpoena in another criminal case, after which he sought Judge Carreon's consideration. With that prior incident, respondent should not have repeated the error and should have more conscientiously performed his duties. As the present complaint demonstrates, however, respondent continued to neglect his tasks. It apparently did not matter to respondent that Judge Carreon had already repeatedly reprimanded him, or that he incurred an "unsatisfactory" rating in his performance. His conduct indeed reflects a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, constituting neglect of duty.[18]
	AM NO. 04-6-332-RTC 2006-04-05	REPORT ON INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED ON ALLEGED SPURIOUS BAILBONDS
Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference.[60] As a responsible court employee, Callado should not have allowed Reyes to interfere with his assigned duty of giving the documents in his custody to the proper person or office. We agree with Justice Molina's observation that had Callado done so, he would have discovered that there was an irregularity in the issuance of the release orders and he could have helped in preventing the unauthorized release of the detention prisoners subject of the questioned release orders in his custody.
	AM NO. P-04-1791 2006-01-27	RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. LORNA O. IGONIA CARPIO, J.
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA that respondent is administratively liable for simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference. [39] Considering that this is respondent's first infraction and on the belief that she acted in good faith, in view of the fact that the petition for indirect contempt against complainant was dismissed by the trial court in an Order dated 14 October 2002, [40] we accept the recommended penalty of reprimand.