Lawyerly

AM No. P-10-2840

2015-06-23

PER CURIAM

from her to perform all the duties and responsibilities of a Clerk of Court.[26] As the OIC, she bore the same responsibilities and was expected to serve with the same commitment and efficiency as a duly-appointed Clerk of Court. Likewise, she must be held liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of the funds entrusted to her by virtue of her office.[27]

AM No. P-11-2967

2013-02-13

ERLINDA C. MENDOZA v. PEDRO S. ESGUERRA

BRION, J.

No less than the Constitution itself mandates that all public officers and employees should serve with responsibility, integrity and efficiency, for public office is a public trust.[9] The Court has repeatedly reminded those who work in the Judiciary to be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency; they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence, since they are officers of the Court and agents of the law.[10] "Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who would violate the norm[s] of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced."[11]

AM No. P-05-2082

2011-11-29

OCA v. CLERK OF COURT HERMENEGILDO I. MARASIGAN

PER CURIAM

The respondent admitted that when he assumed office in 1993, he assigned to Necesito in good faith "the collections, remittances, financial reports and the accountable forms only to find out that some are already missing."[17] This is a highly irresponsible move. As clerk of court, the respondent is the court's accountable officer, not the cash clerk. No amount of good faith can relieve him of his duty to properly administer and safeguard the court's funds. As the Court said in an earlier case, clerks of court are officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and sound administration of justice.[18] They are designated custodians of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties and premises.[19] They are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property.[20] We find the respondent liable for gross neglect of duty.

AM No. P-07-2364

2011-01-25

REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SONIA L. DY v. ATTY. GRACIANO D. CUANICO

PER CURIAM

As the OIC of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Dy bore the same responsibilities and was expected to serve with the same commitment and efficiency as a duly-appointed Clerk of Court.[35] Likewise, she must be held liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of the funds entrusted to her by virtue of her office.

AM No. P-09-2686

2010-03-10

PRISCILLA L. HERNANDO v. JULIANA Y. BENGSON

MENDOZA, J.

The yardstick laid down by the Court in Gutierrez v. Quitalig[4] and reiterated in Gabatin v. Quirino[5] is enlightening, thus: Employees of the judiciary... should be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties but also in their personal and private dealings with other people so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community. The image of the court, as being a true temple of justice, is aptly mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowliest of its personnel.

AM No. P-09-2598

2009-02-12

REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MCTC-MADDELA

PER CURIAM

Those who work in the judiciary, such as Mrs. Dueñas, must adhere to high ethical standards to preserve the court's good name and standing.[9] They should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency, and they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence since they are officers of the court and agents of the law.[10] Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced.[11]

AM No. P-08-2451

2008-10-17

ROEL A. FERNANDEZ v. RENATO RUBILLOS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Employees of the judiciary should be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties but also in their personal and private dealings with other people so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community. The image of a court, as being a true temple of justice, is aptly mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel.[20]

AM No. P-06-2113

2008-02-06

OCA v. EFREN F. VARELA

While respondent discharged the functions of a Clerk of Court only in an acting capacity, still, the expectation for him to perform all the duties and responsibilities of a Clerk of Court is not diminished. Indeed, the fact that he is only an acting Clerk of Court cannot absolve him from liability.[32]

AM No. P-07-2305

2007-04-04

MARLITO R. ROBLES v. SHERWIN M. BALOLOY

TINGA, J.

Respondents should remember that the image of the courts as a true temple of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat.[11] Hence, their conduct must at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum and above all else, be above suspicion so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the judiciary.[12] Furthermore, their unauthorized absence from their posts during regular office hours robs the Court of their time and effort best reserved for public service. Such unofficial absences however short may interrupt the smooth flow of government function thus rendering public service inutile.[13]

AM NO. P-06-2270

2006-12-06

LBC BANK VIGAN BRANCH v. CARLOS Q. GUZMAN

TINGA, J.

[16] Gutierrez, et al. v. Quitalig, 448 Phil. 469, 480, citing Re: Administrative Matters OCA IPI No. 97-228-P, Judge Rafael P. Santelices v. Loida B. Samar, Utility Aide, Regional Trial Court-Library, Legaspi City; and OCA IPI No. 97-383-P, Judge Rafael P. Santelices v. Loida B. Samar, Utility Aide, Regional Trial Court-Library, Legaspi City, A. M. No. 00-1394, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 78.

AM NO. P-06-2167

2006-06-27

JUDGE PLENIO B. DELA PEÑA v. ROGELIO A. SIA

PER CURIAM

No less than the Constitution itself provides that a public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees are duty bound to serve the people with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency and shall, at all times, remain accountable to the people.[15] Persons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service. The conduct of every personnel connected with the courts should, at all times, be circumspect to preserve the integrity and dignity of our courts of justice.[16] As forerunners in the administration of justice, they ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity, considering that their positions primarily involve service to the public. Clerks of Court, in particular, are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts who must show competence, honesty and probity, having been charged with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. Furthermore, they are judicial officers entrusted to perform delicate functions with regard to the collection of legal fees, and are expected to correctly and effectively implement regulations.[17] Hence, as custodians of court funds and revenues, they have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds received by them to the authorized government depositories for they are not supposed to keep funds in their custody.[18]

AM NO. P-06-2140

2006-06-26

RE: REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MTCC-OCC

PER CURIAM

Those who work in the judiciary must adhere to high ethical standards to preserve the court's good name and standing.[20] They should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency, and they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence since they are officers of the court and agents of the law.[21] Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced.[22]

	AM No. P-10-2840 2015-06-23	OCA v. MS. FLORED L. NICOLAS PER CURIAM
from her to perform all the duties and responsibilities of a Clerk of Court.[26] As the OIC, she bore the same responsibilities and was expected to serve with the same commitment and efficiency as a duly-appointed Clerk of Court. Likewise, she must be held liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of the funds entrusted to her by virtue of her office.[27]
	AM No. P-11-2967 2013-02-13	ERLINDA C. MENDOZA v. PEDRO S. ESGUERRA BRION, J.
No less than the Constitution itself mandates that all public officers and employees should serve with responsibility, integrity and efficiency, for public office is a public trust.[9] The Court has repeatedly reminded those who work in the Judiciary to be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency; they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence, since they are officers of the Court and agents of the law.[10] "Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who would violate the norm[s] of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced."[11]
	AM No. P-05-2082 2011-11-29	OCA v. CLERK OF COURT HERMENEGILDO I. MARASIGAN PER CURIAM
The respondent admitted that when he assumed office in 1993, he assigned to Necesito in good faith "the collections, remittances, financial reports and the accountable forms only to find out that some are already missing."[17] This is a highly irresponsible move. As clerk of court, the respondent is the court's accountable officer, not the cash clerk. No amount of good faith can relieve him of his duty to properly administer and safeguard the court's funds. As the Court said in an earlier case, clerks of court are officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and sound administration of justice.[18] They are designated custodians of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties and premises.[19] They are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property.[20] We find the respondent liable for gross neglect of duty.
	AM No. P-07-2364 2011-01-25	REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SONIA L. DY v. ATTY. GRACIANO D. CUANICO PER CURIAM
As the OIC of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Dy bore the same responsibilities and was expected to serve with the same commitment and efficiency as a duly-appointed Clerk of Court.[35] Likewise, she must be held liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of the funds entrusted to her by virtue of her office.
	AM No. P-09-2686 2010-03-10	PRISCILLA L. HERNANDO v. JULIANA Y. BENGSON MENDOZA, J.
The yardstick laid down by the Court in Gutierrez v. Quitalig[4] and reiterated in Gabatin v. Quirino[5] is enlightening, thus: Employees of the judiciary... should be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties but also in their personal and private dealings with other people so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community. The image of the court, as being a true temple of justice, is aptly mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowliest of its personnel.
	AM No. P-09-2598 2009-02-12	REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MCTC-MADDELA PER CURIAM
Those who work in the judiciary, such as Mrs. Dueñas, must adhere to high ethical standards to preserve the court's good name and standing.[9] They should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency, and they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence since they are officers of the court and agents of the law.[10] Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced.[11]
	AM No. P-08-2451 2008-10-17	ROEL A. FERNANDEZ v. RENATO RUBILLOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Employees of the judiciary should be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties but also in their personal and private dealings with other people so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community. The image of a court, as being a true temple of justice, is aptly mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel.[20]
	AM No. P-06-2113 2008-02-06	OCA v. EFREN F. VARELA
While respondent discharged the functions of a Clerk of Court only in an acting capacity, still, the expectation for him to perform all the duties and responsibilities of a Clerk of Court is not diminished. Indeed, the fact that he is only an acting Clerk of Court cannot absolve him from liability.[32]
	AM No. P-07-2305 2007-04-04	MARLITO R. ROBLES v. SHERWIN M. BALOLOY TINGA, J.
Respondents should remember that the image of the courts as a true temple of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat.[11] Hence, their conduct must at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum and above all else, be above suspicion so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the judiciary.[12] Furthermore, their unauthorized absence from their posts during regular office hours robs the Court of their time and effort best reserved for public service. Such unofficial absences however short may interrupt the smooth flow of government function thus rendering public service inutile.[13]
	AM NO. P-06-2270 2006-12-06	LBC BANK VIGAN BRANCH v. CARLOS Q. GUZMAN TINGA, J.
[16] Gutierrez, et al. v. Quitalig, 448 Phil. 469, 480, citing Re: Administrative Matters OCA IPI No. 97-228-P, Judge Rafael P. Santelices v. Loida B. Samar, Utility Aide, Regional Trial Court-Library, Legaspi City; and OCA IPI No. 97-383-P, Judge Rafael P. Santelices v. Loida B. Samar, Utility Aide, Regional Trial Court-Library, Legaspi City, A. M. No. 00-1394, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 78.
	AM NO. P-06-2167 2006-06-27	JUDGE PLENIO B. DELA PEÑA v. ROGELIO A. SIA PER CURIAM
No less than the Constitution itself provides that a public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees are duty bound to serve the people with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency and shall, at all times, remain accountable to the people.[15] Persons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service. The conduct of every personnel connected with the courts should, at all times, be circumspect to preserve the integrity and dignity of our courts of justice.[16] As forerunners in the administration of justice, they ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity, considering that their positions primarily involve service to the public. Clerks of Court, in particular, are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts who must show competence, honesty and probity, having been charged with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. Furthermore, they are judicial officers entrusted to perform delicate functions with regard to the collection of legal fees, and are expected to correctly and effectively implement regulations.[17] Hence, as custodians of court funds and revenues, they have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds received by them to the authorized government depositories for they are not supposed to keep funds in their custody.[18]
	AM NO. P-06-2140 2006-06-26	RE: REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MTCC-OCC PER CURIAM
Those who work in the judiciary must adhere to high ethical standards to preserve the court's good name and standing.[20] They should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency, and they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence since they are officers of the court and agents of the law.[21] Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced.[22]

ZENAIDA C. GUTIERREZ v. RODOLFO V. QUITALIG