This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, we cannot subscribe to the recommendation of the OCA that respondent's receipt of subject pleading several minutes after office hours raises a presumption that she used her office to extend a favor to a litigant. There is simply no such presumption that exists in the Rules on Evidence or in statute books. On the other hand, it is basic that court officials and personnel are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties.[18] At this point, it may not be amiss to state that the circulars issued by this Court pertaining to the observance of prescribed working hours[19] are intended to promote punctuality and prevent tardiness or absenteeism "if only to recompense the government and, ultimately, the people, who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary."[20] They are not intended to deny public service to the same people who come to court to transact business, even if they arrive a few minutes after the prescribed working hours, when there are still court personnel present who could serve them. Neither should they be construed as to prohibit dedicated court personnel to render genuine public service beyond the regular office hours. "Truly, public servants at times should share a part of their extra time and skills in order to facilitate swift delivery of service to the public."[21] | |||||