Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONCERNED CITIZEN v. ELEUTERIO C. GABRAL

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 188909 2014-09-17	REPUBLIC v. FLORENDO B. ARIAS PEREZ, J.
Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or registration. Dishonesty was understood to imply a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; unworthiness; lack of integrity.[10] Respondent's act of recommending approval despite lack of certification from end-users does not constitute dishonesty. It is actually a form of gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct.
	AM No. P-04-1785 2013-04-02	OCA v. DEVELYN GESULTURA LEONEN, J.
No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from the occupant than does the judicial office. The safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to the goal of an orderly administration of justice.[21] The act of misappropriating judiciary funds constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct which are grave offenses punishable by dismissal upon the commission of even the first offense.[22] Time and again, we have reminded court personnel tasked with collections of court funds, such as Clerks of Courts and cash clerks, to deposit immediately with authorized government depositories the various funds they have collected, because they are not authorized to keep funds in their custody.[23] In Re: Deceitful Conduct of Ignacio S. Del Rosario, Cash Clerk III, Records and Miscellaneous Matter Section, Checks Disbursement Division, FMO-OCA,[24] the Court dismised from the service cash clerk Ignacio S. Del Rosario who had admitted to misappropriating money entrusted to him by one Noel G. Primo. In In Re: Report of Regional Coordinator Felipe Kalalo on Alleged Anomalies Involving JDF Collections in MTCC, Angeles City and MCTC, Minalin, Pampanga,[25] the Court found sufficient evidence for the guilt of Records Officer and officer-in-charge of JDF Collections Josephine Calaguas for the misappropriation of P92,737.00 worth of JDF collections; Calaguas had admitted to using the JDF collections for the medical treatment of her father. She was accordingly dismissed from the service on the ground of dishonesty.
	AM No. P-09-2597 2012-09-11	ADMINISTRATOR v. LEONILA R. ACEDO MENDOZA, J.
The violations that Acedo committed were offenses that merit serious and harsh penalties. "The failure to remit the funds in due time amounts to dishonesty and grave misconduct, which the Court cannot tolerate for they diminish the people's faith in the Judiciary. The act of misappropriating judiciary funds constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct which are punishable by dismissal from the service even if committed for the first time."[18] For those who have fallen short of their accountabilities, the Court has not hesitated to impose the ultimate penalty.[19]
	AM No. P-11-2952 2012-07-30	ANECITA PANALIGAN v. ETHELDA B. VALENTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court does not hold Valente administratively liable for dishonesty. Dishonesty implies a "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; unworthiness; lack of integrity."[25] Valente, in telling Judge Barte that Panaligan was served with a notice of hearing, may have sincerely but mistakenly remembered and/or believed herself personally handing over such a notice to Panaligan; as well as casually assumed that Magbanua had served the notice of hearing upon Panaligan in the regular performance of Magbanua's duties as Process Server. In the absence of substantial evidence, the Court cannot lightly attribute to Valente an intent to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud anyone.
	GR No. 189479 2011-04-12	JEROME JAPSON v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NACHURA, J.
Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his duty.[30] It implies a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness and straightforwardness.[31]
	AM No. P-05-2004 2008-03-14	OCA v. LOURDES F. BERMEJO PER CURIAM
Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making a false statement on any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, appointment or registration.[8] Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects a person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity. It is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary, as no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the judiciary.[9]
	AM NO. 05-5-268-RTC 2006-05-04	RE: SPURIOUS CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY OF TESSIE G. QUIRES PER CURIAM
The Court has pronounced, time and again, that it is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[26] Assumption of public office is impressed with paramount public interest, thus persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence in the public service.[27]
	AM NO. P-06-2104 2006-01-31	JUDGE JOSELITO S. SALVADOR v. ROMANCITO M. SERRANO PER CURIAM
On numerous occasions, this Court did not hesitate to impose such extreme punishment on employees found guilty of grave offenses. [28] There is no reason why respondent should be treated differently. We note that there are two (2) other administrative cases slapped against respondent. OCA IPI No. 98-516, for which he was admonished Per Resolution dated 13 December 2000 and OCA IPI No. 99-802-MTJ, for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, still pending in this Court.