This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-12-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| However, in several cases, the Court has mitigated the imposable penalty for special reasons.[12] In Almera v. B.F. Goodrich, Philippines, Inc.,[13] this Court stated that where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may have been committed ought not to be meted a consequence so severe. The law is concerned not only with the employee but his family as well. Unemployment brings untold hardship and sorrow to those dependent on the wage-earner. We have also considered length of service in the judiciary, acknowledgment of infractions, remorse and other family circumstances, among others, in determining the proper penalty.[14] Thus, in this case, respondent is entitled to the following mitigating circumstances: (a) his more than twenty-three (23) years of service in the government; (b) this is only his second offense; and (c) humanitarian reasons. | |||||
|
2008-06-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Respondent as an officer of the court should have shown a high degree of professionalism in the performance of his duties. Instead, he failed to comply with his duties under the law and to observe proper procedure dictated by the rules. A sheriff is a front-line representative of the justice system in this country. Once he loses the people's trust, he diminishes the people's faith in the judiciary.[8] Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty as the image of the Supreme Court is mirrored in the conduct, not only of the Justices, but of every man and woman working thereat. Any act which diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced.[9] | |||||
|
2006-09-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We are, however, given a certain measure of discretion to temper our judgment with mercy. Indeed in a number of cases, we refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors[18] and, in fact, mitigated the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons.[19] We have also considered the length of service in the judiciary; the respondent's acknowledgment of his infractions, his feelings of remorse; and family circumstances, among others, in determining the proper penalty.[20] We have also ruled that where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited by consequences so severe. It is not only because of the law's concern for the workingman. There is in addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on wage earners."[21] | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent, to exculpate himself, interposed the defense of forgetfulness. Instead of exonerating himself, the tendered justification only served to highlight his mendacious nature. Forgetfulness or failure to remember is never a rational, logical, nor reasonable, much less acceptable, explanation. [17] Neither is a claim of heavy workload excused. [18] | |||||