This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2010-12-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In Adm. Case for Dishonesty & Falsification Against Luna,[11] this Court emphasized that "every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, he must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the court's good name and standing." Manubag indubitably failed to meet the strict standards set for a court employee, hence, she does not deserve to remain in the judiciary. | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petition should not be given due course because of petitioner's failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.[4] Moreover, respondents emphasized that the marginal note allegedly written by the President stating No Objection had never been authenticated and was effectively revoked by Budget Circular No. 2003-7 and Administrative Circular No. 88, limiting extra cash-gift to all government and local government personnel to P5,000.00 only.[5] | |||||
|
2009-09-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document Against Noel V. Luna, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer,[22] the importance of accomplishing a PDS with utmost honesty has been emphasized, as the same is required under Section 5, Rule V of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, in connection with employment in the government.[23] The making of an untruthful statement therein amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document, which warrant dismissal from the service even for the first offense. In the present case, respondent falsified her PDS, an official document, to gain unwarranted advantage over other applicants who may have been more qualified for the same position. Respondent failed to measure up to the standards required of a public servant and, hence, should accordingly be sanctioned. | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| It cannot be gainsaid that every person 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.[30] We say it again: dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[31] All told, we remain dauntless in our resolve in chastising any conduct, act or omission on the part of those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the highest standards of public accountability. | |||||
|
2008-10-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In Administrative Case For Dishonesty And Falsification Of Official Document Against Noel V. Luna, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer,[10] the Court reiterated that every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty. Like any public servant, he must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the court's good name and standing. It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel. Court personnel have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice. Respondent in this case failed to meet the stringent standards set for a judicial employee; hence, he does not deserve to remain in the office staff of the judiciary. | |||||
|
2005-08-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[3] No other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the judiciary.[4] This Court has emphasized repeatedly that every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[5] The conduct required of court personnel, from the highest magistrate to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach.[6] | |||||
|
2004-03-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| For having twice misrepresented in his Personal Data Sheets that he was a college graduate when in reality he was not, we are constrained to hold respondent liable for dishonesty by misrepresentation and falsification of a public document.[25] | |||||