This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-04-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As a sheriff, respondent was expected to conduct himself with propriety and decorum, and be above suspicion.[9] The Court will not tolerate any conduct, act or omission by any court employee violating the norm of public accountability and diminishing or tending to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[10] | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| By the very nature of their functions, deputy sheriffs, such as respondent, are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence and above all, to be beyond suspicion.[26] Evidently, respondent's repeated failure to make a return, to serve notice to the accused, and to submit a return within the allowable period constitute inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service each carry the penalty of suspension from six months and one day to one year even for the first offense.[27] | |||||
|
2007-10-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Simple misconduct has been defined as an unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers.[76] It is an unlawful behavior.[77] "Misconduct in office is any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. It generally means wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose although it may not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent."[78] | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court, however, finds respondent liable for simple misconduct. Simple misconduct has been defined as an unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers.[38] It is an unlawful behavior.[39] "Misconduct in office is any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. It generally means wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose although it may not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent."[40] | |||||
|
2007-07-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Misconduct, on the other hand, is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. To warrant dismissal from the service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. The misconduct must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office.[20] | |||||
|
2007-07-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent's actuation undermines the people's faith in the judiciary. The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work in the judiciary, from the judge to the employee holding the lowest position. It becomes the imperative and sacred duty of each and every one in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice. Thus, every employee of the court should be an exemplar of integrity, uprightness, and honesty.[15] Respondent failed in this duty. No other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an employee than the judiciary.[16] The Court will not tolerate or condone any conduct of judicial employees which tends to or actually diminishes the faith of the people in the judiciary. | |||||
|
2006-02-16 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| This Court has repeatedly warned that by the very nature of their functions, sheriffs are under obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their ability,[9] and must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, and above all else, be above suspicion.[10] | |||||
|
2006-02-16 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| This Court has repeatedly warned that by the very nature of their functions, sheriffs are under obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their ability,[9] and must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, and above all else, be above suspicion.[10] | |||||