This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-09-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel stresses that employees of the Judiciary serve as sentinels of justice and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people's confidence in it. No other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an employee than in the Judiciary.[12] Clerks of Court, in particular, are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts. They must show competence, honesty and probity, having been charged with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings.[13] | |||||
|
2007-03-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel stresses that employees of the judiciary serve as sentinels of justice and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the judiciary and the people's confidence in it.[11] This Court has recently spent millions in training, seminars and literature to uplift the professionalism of its employees, and cases, such as this one, put all its efforts to naught. The accusations of incompetence, bias, neglect of duty, extortion, and abuse of authority, by one employee against another, ought not to be taken lightly, for they not only put the Court in a bad light but undermine the whole efforts of the judiciary. We take this occasion to reiterate that the behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the clerk of lowest rank, should be circumscribed with a high degree of responsibility.[12] | |||||