Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE: DECEITFUL CONDUCT OF IGNACIO S. DEL ROSARIO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. P-13-3119 2014-02-10	EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. OFELIA S. CONTRERAS-SORIANO v. CLERK III LIZA D. SALAMANCA REYES, J.
The actuations of Salamanca constitute dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Dishonesty is defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud. It implies untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle on the part of the individual who failed to exercise fairness and straightforwardness in his or her dealings.[4]
	AM No. P-09-2726 2013-08-28	A.M. No. P-10-2884 JUDGE ROBERTO P. BUENAVENTURA v. FE A. MABALOT MENDOZA, J.
Time and again, this Court has declared that the image of a court of justice is mirrored by the conduct, official or otherwise, of its personnel from the judge to the lowest of its rank and file who are all bound to adhere to the exacting standard of morality and decency in both their professional and private actions.[37] In the case of Consolacion v. Gambito,[38] quoting the pronouncement in Hernando v. Bengson,[39] the Court stressed that:The conduct of every court personnel must be beyond reproach and free from suspicion that may cause to sully the image of the Judiciary. They must totally avoid any impression of impropriety, misdeed or misdemeanor not only in the performance of their official duties but also in conducting themselves outside or beyond the duties and functions of their office. Court personnel are enjoined to conduct themselves toward maintaining the prestige and integrity of the Judiciary for the very image of the latter is necessarily mirrored in their conduct, both official and otherwise. They must not forget that they are an integral part of that organ of the government sacredly tasked in dispensing justice. Their conduct and behavior, therefore, should not only be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility but at all times be defined by propriety and decorum, and above all else beyond any suspicion.
	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-09-2646 2012-06-18	JUDGE AMADO S. CAGUIOA v. ELIZABETH G. AUCENA PERALTA, J.
Respondent committed dishonesty by causing the unauthorized insertion of an additional sentence in the trial court's order. Dishonesty has been defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud. It implies untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle on the part of the individual who failed to exercise fairness and straightforwardness in his or her dealings.[10] By her act, she has compromised and undermined the public's faith in the records of the court below and, ultimately, the integrity of the Judiciary.[11] To tolerate such act would open the floodgates to fraud by court personnel.