This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-07-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Finally, respondent's AWOL prejudiced public service. Time and again, this Court has pronounced that any act which falls short of the exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced. Public office is a public trust. Public officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. x x x[8] Indeed, respondent's refusal to appear during the investigation, her being AWOL immediately after learning of the possible filing of the administrative case against her, and the fact that she moved out of her given address, are clear indicia of her guilt.[9] | |||||
|
2006-11-22 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Also, we view respondent's act of filing her resignation before the investigation as indicative of her guilt. Indeed, an employee's act of tendering her resignation immediately after the discovery of the anomalous transaction is indicative of her guilt as flight in criminal cases.[21] And, resignation is not a way out to evade administrative liability when a court employee is facing administrative sanction.[22] | |||||
|
2006-08-30 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| At bottom is the sad spectacle of two officials of the judiciary wasting the precious hours of the Court, including theirs, that could have otherwise been devoted to a more salutary productive judicial pursuit rather than on petty wrangling that has no place in the judicial system. They ought to be reminded that the nature and responsibilities of the men and women in the judiciary, as defined in different canons of conduct, are neither mere rhetorical words nor idealistic sentiments but working standards and attainable goals to be matched with actual deeds.[3] The Court has repeatedly stressed that court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants charged with dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, if not maturity. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in accordance with law and court regulations. They should avoid any act or conduct that would or tend to diminish public trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those connected with the dispensation of justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility. [4] | |||||