This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-12-13 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Respondent Eric De Vera's actuation undermines the people's faith in the judiciary. He is reminded that the delicate nature of work of those involved in the administration of justice, from the highest judicial official to the lowest personnel, requires them to live up to the strictest standard of honesty, integrity and uprightness,[9] in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.[10] The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct of its personnel. It is their sacred duty to maintain the good name and standing of the court as a true temple of justice.[11] | |||||
|
2003-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to the reprimand imposed by complainant Judge on respondent for her absences in 1996, we find this to be in order only with respect to the October 18, 1996 incident. As to her sick leave of absence on October 8 and 11, 1996 because of sore eyes, a medical certificate is not necessary in case of sick leave of absence for less than five succeeding days.[10] At any rate, considering that respondent had already been reprimanded by complainant Judge, it would not be appropriate that she be penalized anew for the same acts.[11] | |||||