This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-07-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| If the Court were to be steadfast in performing its duty to apply the law, no matter how harsh, then the only course of action at this juncture is to dismiss Ang from the service. Clearly, public interest in an efficient and honest judiciary dictates that notice of future harsher penalties should not be followed by another forewarning of the same kind, ad infinitum, but by discipline through appropriate penalties.[9] The Court has dismissed employees in the past for habitual absenteeism, lamenting that the offense causes inefficiency in the public service.[10] Habitual tardiness of this frequency must be treated likewise, if we are to maintain the administration of justice orderly and efficient. | |||||