Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JEWEL F. CANSON v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AM No. 2011-01-SC 2011-08-23	RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF MR. RECARREDO S. VALENZUELA CARPIO, J.
Valenzuela charges Giganto with gross misconduct. Misconduct is defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the proper determination of the cause.[30] It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.[31] The term "gross" connotes something "out of all measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant; shameful."[32]
	AM No. MTJ-05-1609 2005-09-20	TRINIDAD O. LACHICA v. JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Misconduct is defined as any unlawful conduct of a person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.[17] To justify the taking of drastic disciplinary action, as is what is sought by complainant in this case, the law requires that the error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in bad faith.[18]
	AM No. MTJ-02-1422 2003-11-21	NEGROS GRACE PHARMACY v. JUDGE ALFREDO P. HILARIO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
"Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill-will; it partakes of the nature of fraud (Spiegel vs. Beacon Participation, 8 NE 2nd Series, 895, 1007). It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill-will for ulterior purposes (Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155, 166-167 (1966). Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage."[15]
	AM No. RTJ-02-1742 2003-09-11	AVELINA MADULA v. JUDGE RUTH CRUZ SANTOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Misconduct is defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause.[10] It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.[11] To justify the taking of drastic disciplinary action, as is what is sought by complainant in this case, the law requires that the error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or committed in bad faith.[12] For liability to attach, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only found to be erroneous but, most importantly, it must be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive.[13]