This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-07-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Time and time again, this Court has emphasized that the conduct or behavior of all officials and employees of an agency involved in the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.[17] Their conduct must at all times be characterized by, among others, strict propriety and decorum in order to earn and maintain the respect of the public for the judiciary.[18] | |||||
|
2009-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Time and time again, this Court has emphasized that the conduct or behavior of all officials and employees of an agency involved in the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.[17] Their conduct must at all times be characterized by, among others, strict propriety and decorum in order to earn and maintain the respect of the public for the judiciary.[18] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The conduct or behavior of all officials and employees of an agency involved in the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.[13] Their conduct must, at all times be characterized by, among others, strict propriety and decorum in order to earn and maintain the respect of the public for the judiciary.[14] | |||||
|
2000-08-01 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Bulacan by registered mail, the MTC of San Ildefonso, Bulacan has yet to receive the same. As pointed out by the investigating judge, respondent Corpuz failed to secure a registry return card or, in the absence thereof, a certification from the post office to show that said records were mailed. Indeed, even in the absence of a registry return card or certification, "the Court is certain that the [documents] will reach the addressee if really mailed."[15] This circumstance leads us to doubt whether respondent Corpuz actually transmitted the records to the MTC of San Ildefonso, Bulacan, and more importantly, whether Madera indeed posted a bail bond for her temporary liberty in Criminal Case Nos. 6333-6336 and 6360-6362. We have consistently held that the conduct required of court personnel must always be beyond reproach and is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.[16] This Court cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of 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.[17] As to the penalty that should be imposed on respondents Judge Jovellanos and Corpuz, we find the recommended penalty of dismissal too harsh. In Yaneza, we meted upon respondent judge therein the penalty of dismissal considering the number of times he exceeded his | |||||