This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-07-17 |
|||||
| While this Court is duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, this Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy.[16] Section 53 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, provides that in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, the exonerating, mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances may be considered.[17] Considering that respondent Abaigar is a first-time offender, a lighter penalty than dismissal from the service would suffice in this case. Thus, instead of imposing the penalty of dismissal, the penalty of suspension from office for one year without pay is proper.[18] | |||||
|
2007-07-09 |
|||||
| While this Court is duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, this Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy. [18] Considering that the respondent is a first-time offender with 32 years of service in the judiciary, adding the fact of her heavy workload, and taking into account that this is the first administrative complaint filed against her, a lighter penalty than suspension for one month and one day would suffice in this case. | |||||
|
2005-12-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The conduct of every person connected with the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.[8] A public office is a public trust.[9] Public officers, who are accountable at all times to the people[10] -- most especially to court litigants -- must perform their duties and responsibilities with utmost efficiency and competence. | |||||