Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COUNCILOR WINSTON C. CASTELO v. SHERIFF CRISTOBAL C. FLORENDO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. 06-6-340-RTC 2007-10-17	RE: REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC PER CURIAM
Simple misconduct has been defined as an unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers.[76] It is an unlawful behavior.[77] "Misconduct in office is any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. It generally means wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose although it may not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent."[78]
	AM No. P-04-1920 2007-08-17	SPS. NORMANDY AND RUTH BAUTISTA v. ERNESTO L. SULA CARPIO, J.
The Court, however, finds respondent liable for simple misconduct. Simple misconduct has been defined as an unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers.[38] It is an unlawful behavior.[39] "Misconduct in office is any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. It generally means wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose although it may not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent."[40]
	AM NO. P-06-2276 2007-02-05	BEATRIZ F. VILAR v. MARISSA ANGELES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is of no moment that complainant assured respondent that the administrative case will be withdrawn upon full settlement of the latter's accountability. The Investigating Judge was correct in saying that the acts of dishonesty were already consummated. The damage has already been done to the prejudice of the complainant. Moreover, the withdrawal of the complaint or the desistance of a complainant does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint.[15] This Court has an interest in the conduct and behavior of all officials and employees of the judiciary and in ensuring at all times the proper delivery of justice to the people.[16] No affidavit of desistance can divest this Court of its jurisdiction under Section 6, Article VII of the Constitution to investigate and decide complaints against erring employees of the judiciary.[17] The issue in an administrative case is not whether the complaint has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the employees have breached the norms and standards of the courts.[18]
	AM NO. RTJ-05-1907 2006-12-06	EXECUTIVE JUDGE EDWIN A. VILLASOR v. JUDGE RODOLFO R. BONIFACIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
No doubt, respondents Rosalie and Leynes are liable for simple misconduct. Misconduct has been defined as an unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers.[12]