Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAMMY RODRIGUEZ v. JAIME C. EUGENIO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. P-10-2781 2010-11-24	PASTOR C. PINLAC v. OSCAR T. LLAMAS BRION, J.
Neither can we agree with the respondent's theory that the administrative case against him should be dismissed in view of the complainant's affidavit of desistance and/or retraction. We reiterate the settled rule that administrative actions cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant who may, for reasons of his own, accept and condone what is otherwise detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by the unilateral act of the complainant in a matter relating to its disciplinary power. Desistance cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and decide the complaint against the respondent. Where public interest is at stake and the Court can act in relation to the propriety and legality of the conduct of Judiciary officials and employees, the Court shall act irrespective of any intervening private arrangements between the parties.[5]
	AM No. RTJ-08-2131 2010-11-22	LORNA M. VILLANUEVA v. JUDGE APOLINARIO M. BUAYA BRION, J.
The complainant's desistance is likewise not legally significant. We reiterate the settled rule that administrative actions cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant who may, for reasons of his own, accept and condone what is otherwise detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by the unilateral act of the complainant in a matter relating to its disciplinary power. Desistance cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and decide the complaint against the respondent. Where public interest is at stake and the Court can act on the propriety and legality of the conduct of judiciary officials and employees, the Court shall act irrespective of any intervening private arrangements between the parties.[23]
	AM No. P-07-2346 2008-02-18	RE: LETTER OF JUDGE LORENZA BORDIOS PACULDO CORONA, J.
As the administration of justice is a sacred task, the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity.[18] Their conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above suspicion. Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[19]