This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-02-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| When the Supreme Court acts on complaints against judges under its supervision and control, it acts as an administrator imposing discipline and not as a court passing upon justiciable controversies.[32] It is precisely for this reason that disciplinary cases are docketed as "Administrative Matters" or "A.M."[33] Hence, any interpretation by the Court of "plagiarism" is limited to this context and cannot be held to bind the academe in undertaking its educational functions, particularly its own power to define plagiarism in the educational context. It likewise cannot bind Congress in its role as the sole authority to determine what constitutes an impeachable offense, subject to what I stated above on the established scope of impeachable offenses and the power of the Court to act in grave abuse of discretion situations under the Constitution. Specifically, a finding by this Court that plagiarism was or was not committed cannot preclude Congress from determining whether the failure or omission to make an attribution, intentionally or unintentionally, amounts to a "betrayal of public trust." | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| As correctly pointed out by Villanueva, when the Supreme Court acts on complaints against judges or any of the personnel under its supervision and control, it acts as personnel administrator imposing discipline and not as a court judging justiciable controversies.[49] | |||||
|
2003-06-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| When this Court acts on complaints against judges or any personnel under its supervision, it acts as personnel administrator, imposing discipline and not as a court judging justiciable controversies.[16] In this case the issue is whether the respondent should be held administratively liable for his continued refusal to perform a ministerial duty and to obey the lawful order of a superior court, not whether the complainant is entitled to the land in question or to its possession the issues in CV No. 31820. Hence, what is involved is not this Court's power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari final judgments and orders of lower courts in cases involving only questions of law. The present administrative case does not call for the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction. | |||||