This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In previous cases, the Court accorded some measure of compassion to erring employees. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Magbanua,[10] the Court found Process Server Magbanua guilty of dishonesty for making false and inaccurate entries in his DTR and yet only imposed a fine equivalent to one month salary. The Court ratiocinated that the law is concerned for the working man, and respondent's unemployment would bring untold hardships and sorrows on his dependents. In addition, the Court regarded as mitigating circumstance, the fact that Magbanua had been an employee of the court since 1985. Also, in Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Gutierrez III,[11] the Court only imposed the penalty of a P5,000.00 fine for therein respondent's falsification of his DTR, since he readily admitted his wrongdoing and it was the very first time that an administrative case was filed against him in the five years that he had been in government service. | |||||
|
2013-11-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Verily, this Court in many instances has mitigated the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons; considered length of service in the judiciary; and viewed the family circumstances, among others, in determining the proper penalty.[51] In Francisco v. Bolivar,[52] this Court enumerated cases wherein respondent sheriffs therein being first-time offenders De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza[53] for grave misconduct and dishonesty; Adoma v. Gatcheco[54] for grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; Apuyan, Jr. v. Sta. Isabel[55] for grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and Albello v. Galvez[56] for dishonesty were meted the penalty of one year suspension instead of dismissal. | |||||