This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-12-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Neglect of duty is one's failure to give appropriate attention to a task which is expected, signifying a disregard to duty either from carelessness or indifference;[11] while gross neglect is "such neglect from the gravity of the case, or the frequency of instances, becomes so serious in its character as to endanger or threaten the public welfare."[12] | |||||
|
2008-06-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| ...Gross neglect, on the other hand, is such neglect from the gravity of the case, or the frequency of instances, becomes so serious in its character as to endanger or threaten the public welfare. The term does not necessarily include willful neglect or intentional official wrongdoing.[34] (Emphasis supplied.) Good faith on the part of Andres, or lack of it, in proceeding to properly execute his mandate would be of no moment, for he is chargeable with the knowledge that being an officer of the court tasked therefor, it behooves him to make due compliance. He is expected to live up to the exacting standards of his office and his conduct must at all times be characterized by rectitude and forthrightness, and so above suspicion and mistrust as well.[35] Thus, an act of gross neglect resulting in loss of properties in custodia legis ruins the confidence lodged by the parties to a suit or the citizenry in our judicial process. Those responsible for such act or omission cannot escape the disciplinary power of this Court. | |||||
|
2007-06-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that in administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[11] Complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in her complaint and her failure to present evidence to the contrary renders the administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. | |||||