Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONCERNED EMPLOYEE v. ROBERTO VALENTIN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 212825 2015-12-07	CIR v. NEXT MOBILE VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, the CTA First Division held that the Waivers executed by Sarmiento did not validly extend the three-year prescriptive period to assess respondent for deficiency income tax, FWT, EWT, increments for late remittance of tax withheld and compromise penalty, for, as found, the Waivers were not properly executed according to the procedure in Revenue Memorandum Order No. 20-90 (RMO 20-90)[1] and Revenue Delegation Authority Order No. 05-01 (RDAO 05-01).[2]
	AM No. P-11-2951 2012-02-15	LEAVE DIVISION v. LEONCIO K. GUTIERREZ III LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
However, in several administrative cases, we refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. There were several cases,[12] particularly involving dishonesty, in which we meted a penalty lower than dismissal because of the existence of mitigating circumstances.
	AM No. P-10-2784 2011-10-19	FALSIFICATION OF DAILY TIME RECORDS OF MA. EMCISA A. BENEDICTOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
However, in several administrative cases, the Court refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. There were several cases,[15] particularly involving dishonesty, in which the Court meted a penalty lower than dismissal because of the existence of mitigating circumstances.
	AM No. P-08-2494 2008-11-27	RE: REPORT ON IRREGULARITY IN USE OF BUNDY CLOCK BY ALBERTO SALAMAT CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
However, there have been several other administrative cases[32] involving dishonesty, in which the Court meted out a penalty lower than dismissal. In these cases, mitigating circumstances existed which merited the leniency of the Court.
	GR No. 173865 2008-08-20	FACT-FINDING v. J. FERNANDO U. CAMPAÑA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Length of service is an alternative circumstance which can mitigate or possibly even aggravate the penalty, depending on the circumstances of the case.[22] Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty.[23] The same rule underlines the circumstances which mitigate the penalty, such as length of service in the government, physical illness, good faith, education, or other analogous circumstances. In several cases,[24] this Court has mitigated the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons and considered respondent's length of service in the government and his good faith. In several cases, we refrained from imposing the extreme penaltyof dismissalfromtheservice where the erring employee had not been previouslycharged with anadministrative offense.[25] In a catena[26] of cases, this Court has taken into consideration the presence of mitigating circumstances and lowered the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent.[27]
	AM NO. 2005-25-SC 2006-07-06	RE: EMPLOYEES INCURRING HABITUAL TARDINESS IN FIRST SEMESTER OF 2005 PER CURIAM
However, in several administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors.[7] Factors such as the respondent's length of service in the judiciary, the respondent's acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, and family circumstances, among others, have had varying significance in the Court's determination of the imposable penalty.