This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "Dishonesty and falsification are malevolent acts that have no place in the judiciary."[36] Under Rule 10, Section 46 (A) (1) (6) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, these offenses are punishable by dismissal. The penalty of dismissal from service includes cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits, and retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in the government service.[37] | |||||
|
2013-11-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Time and again, we held that persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence in the public service.[15] This Court will not tolerate dishonesty, for the judiciary deserves the best from all its employees.[16] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Dishonesty is defined as "intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion." Thus, dishonesty, like bad faith, is not simply bad judgment or negligence. Dishonesty is a question of intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the respondent, but also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment.[11] | |||||