This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-12-04 |
|||||
| As a public servant, respondent is expected to exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity and faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, and invigorate the principle that public office is a public trust.[19] By soliciting money from complainant, she committed an act of impropriety which immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the judiciary and the people's confidence in it.[20] She committed the ultimate betrayal of the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the judiciary by arrogating to herself judicial power which she does not possess, in order to extort money from a party-litigant.[21] Her act of forging the presiding judge's signature also constitutes a blatant disregard for the values of integrity, uprightness and honesty which are expected of all court personnel.[22] | |||||
|
2007-07-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The Court has repeatedly held that persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence in the public service.[23] Respondent, who, for the purpose of securing a permanent position, used a spurious certificate of eligibility, cannot be said to have measured up to the standards required of a public servant. This Court will not tolerate dishonesty, for the judiciary deserves the best from all its employees.[24] Dishonesty and falsification are malevolent acts that have no place in the judiciary.[25] | |||||
|
2004-10-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| A public office is a public trust and public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives.[13] Indeed, the image of the court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct even of minor employees, thus they must preserve the judiciary's good name and standing as a true temple of justice.[14] This Court has often reminded its personnel of the high norm of public service it requires:[W]e condemn and would never countenance any conduct, act, or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. Every one connected in the task of delivery of justice, from the lowliest employee to the highest official, must at all times be fully aware of the sacramental nature of their function."[15] | |||||