This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-07-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It cannot be stressed enough that the Clerk of Court plays a vital role in ensuring the prompt and sound administration of justice. [3] His office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes and concerns. [4] He is specifically imbued with the mandate to safeguard the integrity of the court as well as the efficiency of its proceedings, to preserve respect for and loyalty to it, to maintain the authenticity or correctness of court records, and to uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. [5] Thus, he is required to be persons of competence, honesty and probity. [6] | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Clerks of court are important functionaries of the judiciary. Their administrative functions are vital to the prompt and sound administration of justice.[15] Their office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes and concerns.[16] They perform a very delicate function as custodian of the court's funds, revenues, records, property and premises.[17] They are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property.[18] They are specifically imbued with the mandate to safeguard the integrity of the court as well as the efficiency of its proceedings, to preserve respect for and loyalty to it, to maintain the authenticity or correctness of court records, and to uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice.[19] Thus, they are required to be persons of competence, honesty and probity.[20] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Time and time again, this Court has stressed that those charged with the dispensation of justice -- from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk -- are circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct at all times must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be beyond suspicion. Every employee should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[38] | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The nature and responsibilities of public officers enshrined in the Constitution and oft-repeated in case law are not mere rhetorical words, not to be taken as idealistic sentiments but as working standards and attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds.[22] Time and again, this Court has stressed that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. They must, at all times, not only observe propriety and decorum; they must also be above suspicion.[23] Every official and employee of the Judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[24] | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Clerks of court, like the respondent herein, are important officers in the judicial system. Their administrative functions are vital to the prompt and sound administration of justice.[11] They cannot be allowed to overstep their powers and responsibilities.[12] Their office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes and judicial concerns.[13] They perform a very delicate function as custodian of the court's funds, revenues, records, property and premises.[14] They are specifically imbued with the mandate to safeguard the integrity of the court as well as the efficiency of its proceedings, and to uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice.[15] Thus, they are required to be persons of competence, honesty and probity.[16] | |||||
|
2004-08-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent is a clerk of a court of justice, an officer described as essential to the judicial system, whose office is the core of activities, both adjudicative and administrative. She occupies a position of great importance and responsibility in the framework of judicial administration.[25] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Where aggravating and mitigating circumstances are present, paragraph (a) shall be applied where there are more mitigating circumstances present; paragraph (b) shall be applied when the circumstances equally offset each other; and paragraph (c) shall be applied when there are more aggravating circumstances. Jurisprudence is abound with cases applying the above rule in the imposition of the proper penalty and even in cases where the penalty prescribed by law, on commission of the first offense, is that of dismissal, which is, as argued by petitioner, an indivisible penalty, the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances may still be taken into consideration by us in the imposition of the proper penalty. Thus, in at least three cases,[24] taking into consideration the presence of mitigating circumstances, we lowered the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent to that of forced resignation[25] or suspension for 6 months and 1 day to 1 year without benefits.[26] This being so, is respondent entitled to a penalty lesser than dismissal, considering (1) her length of service in the government and (2) the fact that the offense she was found guilty of was her first offense? | |||||