This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-10-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision[1] dated January 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 84125, which affirmed the Decision[2] dated October 18, 2004 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Taguig City, Branch 74 in LRC Case No. 172 (LRA Rec. No. N-70108). The MeTC confirmed the title of herein respondent, Lydia Capco de Tensuan (Tensuan), to the parcel of agricultural land, designated as Lot 1109-A, located at Ibayo, Sta. Ana, Taguig City, with an area of 4,006 square meters (subject property), and ordered the registration of said property in her name. | |||||
|
2011-02-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants in an office dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in accordance with the law and court regulations. No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office in the judiciary. Court employees should be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty to maintain the people's respect and faith in the judiciary. They should avoid any act or conduct that would diminish public trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those connected with dispensing justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility.[13] | |||||
|
2011-01-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Once again, we stress that court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants in an office dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in accordance with the law and court regulations. No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office in the judiciary. Court employees should be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty to maintain the people's respect and faith in the judiciary. They should avoid any act or conduct that would diminish public trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those connected with dispensing justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility.[11] | |||||
|
2007-08-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We agree with the OAS that the Court retained administrative authority over respondent when the approval of his resignation was revoked or recalled and the notice of acceptance was not served on him. There was no acceptance of his resignation because its approval was revoked and the final or conclusive act of its acceptance (which was the notice of acceptance) was withheld. The Court's non-acceptance of the resignation rendered the same ineffective and inoperative.[8] Besides, in Office of the Court Administrator v. Ferrer,[9] we found a court employee guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct despite the court's acceptance of his resignation.[10] Resignation is not and should not be a convenient way or strategy to evade administrative liability when a court employee is facing administrative sanction.[11] | |||||