This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-09-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As public officials, Dolot and Tañada are expected to exhibit the highest degree of dedication in deference to their foremost duty of accountability to the people.[32] No less than the Constitution sanctifies the principle that public office is a public trust, and enjoins all public officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.[33] Doubtless, Dolot and Tañada committed infractions of such a grave nature justifying sanctions of commensurate degree. To allow them to remain as accountable public officers, despite their questionable acts, would be rewarding them for their misdeed. | |||||
|
2012-06-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, we cannot subscribe to petitioner's assertions when it does not even question the Order of respondent judge for it to place the deposits under custodia legis, but only on the condition that these deposits could not be physically turned over to the clerk of court. For property to be in custodia legis, it must have been lawfully seized and taken by legal process and authority, and placed in the possession of a public officer such as a sheriff, or of an officer of the court empowered to hold it such as a receiver.[15] Therefore, it was only a natural consequence for respondent judge to order the physical turnover of the deposits, which had already been placed under the name of the Clerk of Court in partial compliance with the 26 April 2007 Order. | |||||