This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-01-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We find the inclination of the respondent judge to leniency in the administrative supervision of his employees an undesirable trait. Oftentimes, such leniency provides the court employees the opportunity to commit minor transgressions of the laws and slight breaches of official duty ultimately leading to vicious delinquencies. The respondent judge should constantly keep a watchful eye on the conduct of his employees. He should realize that big start small. His constant scrutiny of the behavior of his employees would deter any abuse on the part of the latter in the exercise of their duties. Then, his subordinates would know that any misdemeanor will not remain unchecked. The slightest semblance of impropriety on the part of the employees of the court in the performance of their official duties stirs ripples of public suspicion and public distrust of the judicial administrators. The slightest breach of duty by and the slightest irregularity in the conduct of court officers and employees detract from the dignity of the courts and erode the faith of the people in the judiciary. In this case, Judge Achas and Zapatos were remiss in their duty of maintaining proper order in their court. Their failure to live up to the standards of responsibility required warrants disciplinary action for this Court cannot countenance any conduct, act, or omission on the part of those involved in the administration of justice which will violate the norms of public accountability and diminish, or tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the judicial system.[21] | |||||
|
2006-04-05 |
|||||
| In administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[48] In the present case, the Court does not find substantial evidence to prove that Ramos, Agawin and Nequinto are guilty of falsification. The rule is that there can be no conviction for falsification of a public document if the acts of the accused are consistent with good faith.[49] Stated differently, a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of be innocent.[50] While the above-cited principle is applicable in criminal proceedings, the Court finds no cogent reason not to apply the same in the present administrative case, especially considering that administrative proceedings against judicial employees are by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases.[51] In the instant case, it is true that Ramos, Agawin and Nequinto admitted or were found to have certified release orders without Judge Leonida having signed the original copies thereof. However, there is no sufficient evidence to show that there was deliberate intention on their part to mislead or misinform, nor was there proof that they were prompted by bad faith, corrupt motives or any wrongful intention. | |||||
|
2003-08-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| "II. Absenteeism and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as "habitual" or "frequent" under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, shall be dealt with severely, and any falsification of daily time records to cover up for such absenteeism and/or tardiness shall constitute gross dishonesty or serious misconduct." Under Section 52 (A)(1) and (6), Rule VI of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[3] falsification of official document and dishonesty are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service for the first offense.[4] Thus, the OCA recommended respondent's dismissal from the service. | |||||