Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUDGE FE ALBANO MADRID v. ANTONIO T. QUEBRAL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AM NO. P-06-2167 2006-06-27	JUDGE PLENIO B. DELA PEÑA v. ROGELIO A. SIA PER CURIAM
The failure of a clerk of court to turn over funds in his possession and adequately explain and present evidence thereon constitutes gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even malversation of public funds which this Court will never countenance, as these offenses indubitably diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[20] We are thus left with no choice but to declare the respondent guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct.[21] Dishonesty alone, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service. Dishonesty has no place in the Judiciary.[22]
	AM No. P-04-1789 2005-07-22	JUDGE JOSE MANUEL P. TAN v. HENRY G. PAREDES PER CURIAM
It must be stressed that high standards are expected of sheriffs, who play an important role in the administration of justice.[17] At the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are indispensably in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court.[18] The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[19]
	AM NO. P-04-1789 2005-06-22	JUDGE JOSE MANUEL P. TAN v. HENRY G. PAREDES PER CURIAM
It must be stressed that high standards are expected of sheriffs, who play an important role in the administration of justice.[17] At the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are indispensably in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court.[18] The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[19]
	AM No. P-04-1901 2004-11-23	JUDGE TEODORO L. DIPOLOG v. CLERK OF COURT II DARRYL C. MONTEALTO TINGA, J,
Falsification of an official document such as the DTR is considered a grave offense under the CSC Revised Uniform Rules and is penalized with dismissal for the first offense.[19] It is also punishable as a criminal offense under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
	AM No. P-04-1901 2004-11-23	JUDGE TEODORO L. DIPOLOG v. CLERK OF COURT II DARRYL C. MONTEALTO TINGA, J,
Montealto is also liable for gross neglect of duty[25] for his failure to discipline the other employees of the MCTC despite their brazen and repeated violations of civil service rules on attendance, observance of official time and submission of DTRs. The Court has previously held that Clerks of Court are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts. As such they must exhibit competence, honesty, and probity since they are charged with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings.[26]