Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE: REPORT ON HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM OF MS. TERESITA S. SABIDO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM NO. P-05-2021 2006-06-30	JUDGE ALDEN V. CERVANTES v. EDWIN D. CARDEÑO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Time and again, we have stressed that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice are circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.[5] The employees' action at all times must be characterized by propriety and decorum and must be above suspicion.[6]
	AM NO. P-05-2067 2005-08-31	SPS. RAYMUND AND JULIE ANN MIÑOSO v. FREDDIE PAMULAG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has consistently held that persons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service.[13] The conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.[14] This Court cannot countenance any act or omission by all those involved in the administration of justice, where such act or omission would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[15]
	AM No. P-05-2021 2005-06-30	JUDGE ALDEN V. CERVANTES v. EDWIN D. CARDEÑO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
the court as well. It is also clear that it was respondent who provoked the fracas that ensued between him and Hermano. Such behavior is contrary to the ethical conduct demanded by A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct for Court Personnel." Time and again, we have stressed that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice are circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.[5] The employees' action at all times must be
	AM No. P-04-1800 2004-03-25	JUDGE BRICCIO B. AQUINO v. LETICIA U. ISRAEL YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Time and again, we have stressed that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.[4] The records reveal that the action of the respondents against each other fell short of this standard.