This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-11-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| and Section 2, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure[38] which provides: Section 2. Grounds. The appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds: | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| To prevent liability from attaching on account of his letter, he invokes his rights to free speech and privacy of communication. The invocation of these rights will not, however, free him from liability. As already stated, his letter contained defamatory statements that impaired public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. The making of contemptuous statements directed against the Court is not an exercise of free speech; rather, it is an abuse of such right. Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts cannot be disguised as free speech, for the exercise of said right cannot be used to impair the independence and efficiency of courts or public respect therefor and confidence therein.[25] Free expression must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy one's irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy this Court and its magistrates.[26] | |||||
|
2005-07-22 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| As officer of the court, Atty. Sorreda has the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice.[24] No less must this be and with greater reasons in the case of the country's highest court, the Supreme Court, as the last bulwark of justice and democracy | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners, in assailing the morality of respondent De Vera on the basis of the alleged sanction imposed by the Supreme Court during the deliberation on the constitutionality of the plunder law, is apparently referring to this Court's Decision dated 29 July 2002 in In Re: Published Alleged Threats Against Members of the Court in the Plunder Law Case Hurled by Atty. Leonard De Vera.[41] In this case, respondent De Vera was found guilty of indirect contempt of court and was imposed a fine in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) for his remarks contained in two newspaper articles published in the Inquirer. Quoted hereunder are the pertinent portions of the report, with De Vera's statements written in italics. | |||||
|
2003-11-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Rodriguez v. Bonifacio,[2] we held that government service is people oriented. Patience is an essential part of dispensing justice and courtesy is a mark of culture and good breeding. Belligerent behavior has no place in government service where personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence.[3] Indeed, the maintenance of the dignity of courts and the enforcement of the duty of the citizens to respect them are necessary adjuncts to the administration of justice.[4] | |||||
|
2002-09-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence.[16] Maintaining the dignity of courts and enforcing the duty of the citizens to respect them are necessary adjuncts to the administration of justice.[17] In Baniqued v. Rojas,[18] we held: . . . Respondent's high-strung and belligerent behavior cannot be countenanced. Fighting with a co-employee during office hours is a disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. Shouting in the workplace and during office hours is arrant | |||||