This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2005-04-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Nevertheless, we cannot subscribe to the recommendation of the investigating judge that respondent be considered "resigned with prejudice." Resignation is not a way out to evade administrative responsibility when a court employee is facing administrative sanction.[27] It is not even among the penalties which may be imposed on the erring public official. | |||||
|
2002-03-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Dishonesty under Rule XIV, Sec. 23, of the Omnibus Rules of the Civil Service is punishable by dismissal on commission of the first offense.[13] The penalty becomes even more deserved when the dishonesty amounts also to falsification of an official document the penalty for which is dismissal from the service, it being grave in nature, under Memorandum Circular No. 30, series of 1989, of the Civil Service Commission re Guidelines in the Application of Penalties in Administrative Cases.[14] Thus we have not hesitated in previous cases to impose the ultimate penalty of dismissal on officials and employees found guilty of the offense.[15] | |||||
|
2001-02-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The Report and Recommendation of investigating judge Johnson L. Ballutay dated July 5, 1996 shall be treated as an administrative complaint for falsification of official document against MA. DINA A. BERNARDO, for which she is required to submit her comment thereon within ten (10) days from receipt of this decision. The withholding of her salaries and exclusion of her name from the payroll caused by the Supreme Court Office of Administrative Services shall stand, and furthermore, her clearance is withheld pending the resolution of the aforesaid administrative complaint.[4] The instant case was instituted pursuant to aforementioned ruling. Despite respondent Bernardo's receipt of the Court's Decision in Vizcarra on August 5, 1999 as borne by the records,[5] she failed to file her comment to the charges against her. | |||||