This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-08-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, the Court has stressed the need for the conduct and behavior of every person connected with the dispensation of justice to be characterized by propriety and decorum.[23] This standard is applied, not only with respect to a court employee's dealings with the public, but also with his or her co-workers in the service.[24] Conduct violative of this standard quickly and surely erodes respect for the courts.[25] Misbehavior within and around the court's vicinity diminishes the court's sanctity and dignity.[26] Any fighting or misunderstanding becomes a disgraceful sight reflecting adversely on the good image of the Judiciary.[27] | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Engaging in shady and unsavory acts within court premises, even if conducted only in the restroom, diminishes the sanctity and dignity of the court. As courts are temples of justice, their dignity and sanctity must at all times be preserved and enhanced.[15] Moreover, courts are looked upon by the people with high respect and are regarded as sacred places, where litigants are heard, rights and conflicts settled and justice solemnly dispensed. Misbehavior within and around their vicinity diminishes their sanctity and dignity.[16] | |||||
|
2008-06-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Court has emphasized, time and again, that the conduct of every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Even a court janitor is as duty-bound to serve with the highest degree of responsibility as all other public officers. Those who work in the judiciary must adhere to high ethical standards to preserve the court's good name and standing. They should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency, and they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence since they are officers of the court and agents of the law. Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced.[15] The conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. As forerunners in the administration of justice, they ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity, considering that their positions primarily involve service to the public.[16] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Courts are looked upon by the people with high respect and are regarded sacred places, where litigants are heard, rights and conflicts settled and justice solemnly dispensed. Misbehavior within and around their vicinity diminishes their sanctity and dignity.[11] By fighting within court premises, the parties have failed, not only to observe the proper decorum expected of members of the judiciary, they have failed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. In Quiroz v. Orfila,[12] reiterated in the case of Alumbres v. Caoibes, Jr.,[13] we declared:Fighting between court employees during office hours is disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. It displays a cavalier attitude towards the seriousness and dignity with which court business should be treated. Shouting at one another in the workplace and during office hours is arrant discourtesy and disrespect not only towards co-workers, but to the court as well. The behavior of the parties was totally unbecoming members of the judicial service. Such conduct cannot be countenanced. | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We take this opportunity to remind, not only the respondent, but all court personnel as well, that the image of the judiciary is mirrored in the kind of conduct, official or otherwise, which the personnel within its employ display, from the judge to the lowest clerk. Any fighting or misunderstanding becomes a disgraceful sight reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. Professionalism, respect for the rights of others, good manners and right conduct are expected of all judicial officers and employees. Thus, all employees are required to preserve the judiciary's good name and standing as a true temple of justice.[17] | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| "fn">[11] By fighting within court premises, the parties have failed, not only to observe the proper decorum expected of members of the judiciary, they have failed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. In Quiroz v. Orfila,[12] reiterated in the case of Alumbres v. Caoibes, Jr.,[13] we declared: Fighting between court employees during office hours is disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. It displays a cavalier attitude towards the seriousness and dignity with which court business should be treated. Shouting at one another in | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| fighting or misunderstanding becomes a disgraceful sight reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. Professionalism, respect for the rights of others, good manners and right conduct are expected of all judicial officers and employees. Thus, all employees are required to preserve the judiciary's good name and standing as a true temple of justice.[17] WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin D. Cardeño is FINED One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act(s) in the future will be dealt with more severely. | |||||
|
2004-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A word on the examination of Rowena. A rape victim is physically, socially, psychologically and emotionally scarred, resulting in trauma which may last a lifetime.[55] It was thus highly inconsiderate for the prosecutor and the defense counsel to trade quips at the precise time Rowena was reliving her harrowing experience.[56] Courts are looked up to by people with high respect and are regarded as places where litigants are heard, rights and conflicts settled and justice solemnly dispensed.[57] Levity has no place in the courtroom during the examination of a victim of rape, and particularly not at her expense. | |||||