Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUDGE BRICCIO B. AQUINO v. LETICIA U. ISRAEL

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-04-1826 2008-02-06	GREENSTAR BOCAY MANGANDINGAN v. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG
For his prejudicial acts in the conduct of his official tasks, we find Maruhom guilty of simple misconduct.[41] The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service reveals that simple misconduct carries with it a penalty of suspension from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. In our view, his misconduct calls for the imposition of three (3) months suspension from office.
	AM No. P-04-1789 2005-07-22	JUDGE JOSE MANUEL P. TAN v. HENRY G. PAREDES PER CURIAM
We agree with the OCA that Judge Tan violated Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[27] It is indeed the duty of the members of the bench to avoid any impression of impropriety to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary.[28] In announcing in different radio stations the incident concerning Sheriff Paredes' suspension, Judge Tan has contributed to the erosion of the public's confidence in the judiciary. Further, the records show that Sheriff Paredes suffered a swollen left face resulting from Judge Tan's boxing the latter. Thus, we find no reason to disagree with the OCA recommendation that Judge Tan should be held liable. In Aquino v. Israel,[29] we said that fighting between court employees during office hours is a disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. Professionalism, respect for the rights of others, good manners and right conduct are expected of all judicial officers and employees. Thus, all employees are required to preserve the judiciary's good name and standing as a true temple of justice.[30]
	AM NO. P-04-1789 2005-06-22	JUDGE JOSE MANUEL P. TAN v. HENRY G. PAREDES PER CURIAM
We agree with the OCA that Judge Tan violated Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[27] It is indeed the duty of the members of the bench to avoid any impression of impropriety to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary.[28] In announcing in different radio stations the incident concerning Sheriff Paredes' suspension, Judge Tan has contributed to the erosion of the public's confidence in the judiciary. Further, the records show that Sheriff Paredes suffered a swollen left face resulting from Judge Tan's boxing the latter. Thus, we find no reason to disagree with the OCA recommendation that Judge Tan should be held liable. In Aquino v. Israel,[29] we said that fighting between court employees during office hours is a disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. Professionalism, respect for the rights of others, good manners and right conduct are expected of all judicial officers and employees. Thus, all employees are required to preserve the judiciary's good name and standing as a true temple of justice.[30]