This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-06-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Records show that respondent has already effectively resigned from her position,[16] and allegations that she did so to avoid administrative liability have been uncontroverted. The mere expedient of resigning from the service, however, will not extricate a court employee from the consequences of his or her acts.[17] We have often ruled that resignation should not be used either as an escape or as an easy way out to evade an administrative liability or an administrative sanction.[18] Thus, we hold respondent administratively liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty. | |||||
|
2010-12-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Similarly, in Igoy v. Soriano[19] we found the respondent (a Court Attorney of this Court) liable for violating Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, after considering the evidence showing that he demanded and received money from the complainant who had a pending case before this Court. | |||||
|
2004-09-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Government lawyers who are public servants owe utmost fidelity to the public service because public service is a public trust.[25] A lawyer does not shed his professional obligations upon assuming public office.[26] In fact, his professional obligations should make him more sensitive to his official obligations because a lawyer's disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye.[27] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| [W]hat brings our judicial system into disrepute are often the actuations of a few erring court personnel peddling influence to party-litigants, creating the impression that decisions can be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the disillusionment of the public. This Court has never wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the so-called "bad eggs" in the judiciary. And whenever warranted by the gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an administrative case is meted to erring personnel. We have been resolute in our drive to discipline and, if warranted, to remove from the service errant magistrates, employees and even Justices of higher collegiate appellate courts[17] for any infraction which tends to give the Judiciary a bad name. To underscore our earnestness in this pursuit, we have, in fact, been unflinching in imposing discipline on errant personnel[18] or in purging the ranks of those undeserving to remain in the service.[19] We can do no less in this case. | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Even more recently, the Court did not shirk in its responsibility of weeding the Judiciary of misfits when it dismissed one of its own senior lawyers who had twenty-eight (28) years of service behind him for demanding money from a party litigant to influence the outcome of the latter's case pending before it.[38] In dismissing the erring lawyer from the service, the Court emphasized that "[t]he conduct or behavior of all officials and employees of an agency involved in the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.[39] Their conduct must at all times be characterized by, among others, strict propriety and decorum in order to earn and maintain the respect of the public for the judiciary."[40] The Court further pointed out that the nature and responsibilities of public officers are not mere rhetorical words to be taken lightly as idealistic sentiments but as working standards and attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds.[41] | |||||