This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-01-12 |
|||||
| The settled rule is that a clerk of court is grossly negligent for his or her failure to promptly remit or deposit cash collections with the local or nearest LBP Branch, in accordance with Court administrative circulars and issuances.[12] No protestation of good faith can override the mandatory observance of court circulars which are designed to promote full accountability of government funds.[13] Restitution of the amount of the shortages does not erase administrative liability.[14] | |||||
|
2005-12-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It has been ruled that personal problems cannot justify his acts of using the judiciary funds in his custody.[10] We have said time and again that those involved in the administration of justice from the highest official to the lowest clerk must live up | |||||
|
2005-12-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| the collections. The act of misappropriating judiciary funds constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct which are grave offense punished by dismissal.[26] Not even full payment of collection shortages will exempt the accountable officer from liability.[27] Verily, respondents grave misdemeanours justify his severance from the service. As to the charge of tardiness, it was not sufficiently shown that respondent is liable for tardiness. Absent substantial evidence, we are inclined to absolve respondent Gabral from this charge. Besides, the Certification dated 09 March 2005 issued by the Leave Division of | |||||
|
2005-02-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent's use of a false certificate of eligibility constitutes an act of dishonesty under civil service rules and her act of making a false statement in her personal data sheet renders her administratively liable for falsification.[13] Dishonesty and falsification are malevolent acts that have no place in the judiciary.[14] A public office is a public trust. All public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people. They ought to perform their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, and with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.[15] Every officer and man of the judiciary is expected to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum at all times.[16] We have said time and again that those involved in the administration of justice from the highest official to the lowest clerk must live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service bearing in mind that the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat.[17] By doing said acts, she has betrayed the trust reposed on her by the people. Consequently, she has no place in the Judiciary where only those possessing integrity, honesty, competence and independence of mind are summoned to answer the clarion's call of public office. | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| A failure to timely turn over cash deposited with them constitutes, not just gross negligence in the performance of their duty, but gross dishonesty, if not malversation.[36] The act of misappropriating judiciary funds constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct which are grave offenses punished by dismissal.[37] | |||||
|
2003-12-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The actuation/commissioin/omission of Mr. Tugas is in wanton violation of the Circulars issued by this Court. He is guilty of: (1) non-issuance of official receipts and acknowledge receipts of payment of filing fees which is a violation of Article 2, Section 69 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM) and Section 68 of P.D. 1445; (2) delayed and non-remittances of collection which is against Circular No. 5-93 and Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 107-111 of GAAM, and of Circular No. 50-95; and (3) using government money for personal use.[8] The failure of a clerk of court to turn over money deposited with him and adequately explain and present evidence thereon constitutes gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even malversation of public funds which this Court will never countenance, as they indubitably diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[9] Even the fact that the respondent fully paid his shortages will not free him from the consequences of his wrongdoing.[10] | |||||