Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUDGE LYDIA Q. LAYOSA v. TONETTE M. SALAMANCA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM NO. P-01-1523 2006-10-27	CARMELITA CHIONG v. SHERWIN BALOLOY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women, from the judge to the lowest employee. It then becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and every one in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice. Thus, every employee of the court should be an exemplar of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[23] The Court will not tolerate or condone any conduct of judicial agents or employees which tend to or actually diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.
	AM NO. P-05-2035 2006-07-31	ATTY. ALEXANDER L. BANSIL v. NELSON DE LEON CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them.[18] Being ranking officers of the court and agents of the law, they must discharge their duties with great care and diligence.[19] They should at all times show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of their duties as officers of the court.[20] Being at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs are in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the Court.[21] It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work there, from the judge to the lowest employee.[22] As such, the Court will not tolerate or condone any conduct of judicial agents or employees which tend to or actually diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[23]
	AM NO. P-06-2158 2006-04-25	JUDGE DOMINGO C. SAN JOSE v. ROBERT T. CAMURONGAN PER CURIAM
Public servants must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity in their performance of official duties and in their personal affairs, so as to preserve the Court's good name and standing.[17] The administration of justice is a sacred task. This Court cannot countenance, on the part of court personnel, any act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability; and would diminish, or even just tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the judiciary.[18]