Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III v. FLORENTINO VELOSO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. CA-15-31-P 2015-06-16	COMMITTEE ON SECURITY v. REYNALDO V. DIANCO - CHIEF SECURITY PER CURIAM
Mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances in the imposition of administrative penalties must only be considered when clear proof is shown, using the specific standards set by law and jurisprudence, that the facts in a given case justify the mitigation of the prescribed penalty.[88] In appreciating the presence of mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances in a given case, two constitutional principles come into play which the Court is tasked to balance.[89] The first is public accountability, which requires the Court to consider the improvement of public service, and the preservation of the public’s faith and confidence in the government by ensuring that only individuals who possess good moral character, integrity, and competence are employed in the government service.[90]
	GR No. 206379 2014-11-19	CECILIA PAGADUAN v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION* MENDOZA, J.
As a final note, it must be borne in mind that a PDS is a public document[49] required of a government employee and official by the CSC. It is the repository of all information about any government employee or official regarding his personal background, qualification, and eligibility. Government employees are tasked under the Civil Service rules to properly and completely accomplish their PDS,[50] in accordance with the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, thereby enjoining all public officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[51] Only those who can live up to such exacting standard deserve the honor of continuing in public service.[52]
	GR No. 203080 2014-11-12	DR. IDOL L. BONDOC v. MARILOU R. MANTALA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Jurisprudence is replete with cases declaring that a grave offense cannot be mitigated by the fact that the accused is a first time offender or by the length of service of the accused.[30] While in most cases, length of service is considered in favor of the respondent, it is not considered where the offense committed is found to be serious or grave.[31] In Medina v. Commission on Audit,[32] the Court stressed that dishonesty and grave misconduct have always been and should remain anathema in the civil service. They inevitably reflect on the fitness of a civil servant to continue in office. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.
	GR Nos. 168951 & 169000 2013-07-17	DR. ROGER R. POSADAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
However, this Court's mandate is to uphold the Constitution and the laws.Our Constitution stresses that a public office is a public trust and public officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.[60] These constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as working standards by all in the public service.[61]