This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot overstress the need for circumspect and proper behavior on the part of court employees. While it may be just for an individual to incur indebtedness unrestrained by the fact that he is a public officer or employee, caution should be taken to prevent the occurrence of dubious circumstances that might inevitably impair the image of the public office. Employees of the court should always keep in mind that the court is regarded by the public with respect. Consequently, the conduct of each court personnel should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of onus and must at all times be characterized by, among other things, uprightness, propriety and decorum.[4] | |||||
|
2007-08-10 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As regards the unpaid debt of P65,000.00, we must strive to correct any improper conduct of our court personnel. We, therefore, direct Briones to pay the amount to Federis within a reasonable time from the receipt of this Resolution. While this Court is not a collection agency, we find that there is no dispute as to the existence and the amount of the indebtedness. Having benefited from the loan, Briones must pay the same. Briones should further be reminded that a violation of this directive could become the basis of another administrative charge against him. He is expected to be more circumspect in all his affairs, both private and public.[26] | |||||
|
2006-09-05 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Respondent Cervantes failed to meet this exacting standard. His actuation, although made in a private gathering, has stained the image of his public office. Like any member of the Judiciary, respondent is expected to be a model of fairness and honesty not only in all his official conduct but also in his personal actuations, including business and commercial transactions. Any conduct that would be a bane to the public trust and confidence reposed on the Judiciary shall not be countenanced.[24] | |||||