This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-03-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Respondent's issuance of a bouncing check constitutes misconduct which is a ground for disciplinary action.[1] The conduct of every personnel connected with the courts should at all times be circumspect to preserve the integrity and dignity of the courts of justice.[2] Thus, even if respondent paid the value of the subject check and the substantial interest thereon, respondent still stands liable. | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A motion to withdraw an administrative complaint against a member of the judiciary cannot deprive this Court of its authority to ascertain the culpability of a respondent and impose the corresponding penalty.[14] This Court has a great interest in the conduct and behavior of all officials and employees of the judiciary in ensuring the prompt and efficient delivery of justice at all times. Its efforts to comply with its constitutional mandate cannot be frustrated by any private arrangement of the parties[15] because the issue in an administrative case is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the respondents but whether the latter breached the norms and standards of the courts.[16] | |||||
|
2007-02-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A motion to withdraw an administrative complaint against a member of the judiciary cannot deprive this Court of its authority to ascertain the culpability of a respondent and impose the corresponding penalty.[14] This Court has a great interest in the conduct and behavior of all officials and employees of the judiciary in ensuring the prompt and efficient delivery of justice at all times. Its efforts to comply with its constitutional mandate cannot be frustrated by any private arrangement of the parties[15] because the issue in an administrative case is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the respondents but whether the latter breached the norms and standards of the courts.[16] | |||||