Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. REYNALDO B. STA. ANA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AM No. SB-12-19-P 2014-11-18	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. HERMINIGILDO L. ANDAL PER CURIAM
Accordingly, this Court maintains its exacting standards for those who seek to be employed in its fold. While we recognize that respondent stands to lose his source of support for himself and his family, the Court cannot turn a blind eye to what is clearly a transgression of the law.[31] Dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. Thus, similar to the fate of prior employees who falsified their eligibility requirement, we castigate the grave offense of respondent by imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from service.[32]
	AM No. P-13-3141 2014-01-21	ATTY. RHEA R. ALCANTARA-AQUINO v. MYLENE H. DELA CRUZ PER CURIAM
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, Republic Act 6713, enunciates the State's policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. And no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an employee than in the judiciary.[16]
	GR No. 179054 2012-09-05	BAGONG KAPISANAN SA PUNTA TENEMENT v. AZER E. DOLOT MENDOZA, J.
In administrative cases, only substantial evidence is required to support any findings. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Evidently, the circumstances of the case all point to the inexcusable misfeasance of Dolot and Tañada. Dishonesty is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one's ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.[26]
	GR No. 183890 2011-04-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MANUEL P. VALENCIA MENDOZA, J.
On the other hand, Dishonesty is incurred when an individual intentionally makes a false statement of any material fact, practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment, or promotion.[37] It is understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; the disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[38] It is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one's ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.[39] Like the offense of Unexplained Wealth, Section 52 (A)(1), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service treats Dishonesty as a grave offense, the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction.
	GR No. 185685 2011-01-31	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO MENDOZA, J.
Dishonesty begins when an individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment or promotion.[51] It is understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[52] It is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one's ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.[53] Section 52 (A)(1), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service treats dishonesty as a grave offense the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction.[54]
	AM No. P-08-2542 2008-11-28	OCA v. CYRIL JOTIC NACHURA, J.
We have repeatedly emphasized that the conduct of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[14]
	AM NO. 05-5-268-RTC 2006-05-04	RE: SPURIOUS CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY OF TESSIE G. QUIRES PER CURIAM
The act of making a false statement in one's PDS renders an employee liable for falsification.[29]