This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-10 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the records of the case reveal that the conduct of Obispo fell short of this standard. By soliciting money from the complainant, even for the purpose of securing the services of a counsel and the filing of the Petition for Annulment of Marriage, among others, he committed an act of serious impropriety which tarnished the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and deeply affected the people's confidence in it. He committed the ultimate betrayal of the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the Judiciary by peddling influence to litigants, creating the impression that decisions can be bought and sold.[9] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Respondent's dismissal from the service does not preclude his being adjudged administratively liable herein. Such fact does not render the present case moot.[16] Despite being dismissed from the service, the Court, in certain cases, imposed a fine, i.e., P20,000.00[17] and P40,000.00,[18] against the erring court employee to be deducted from one's accrued leave credits. | |||||