This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| This Court cannot tolerate dishonesty. Persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowliest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness and diligence in public service. As the assumption of public office is impressed with paramount public interest requiring the highest ethical standards, persons aspiring for public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law.[11] | |||||
|
2011-01-31 |
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] | |||||
|
2008-04-18 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Perjury in solemn affirmation, on the other hand, is committed when the declarant omits to declare material information that is required of him under oath. It is an act which infirms a public officer's integrity and reliability, qualities that are necessarily connected with the discharge of his functions and duties.[31] In Burgos v. Aquino,[32] a court stenographer was suspended for six months for maintaining illicit relations with the complainant's husband and for perjury in not disclosing in her personal information sheet that she had a daughter as a result of that relationship. The Court held therein that her deliberate omission to disclose her child without a valid justification makes her liable for perjury. | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
|||||
| One who invokes good faith must show honesty of intention, free from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put one upon inquiry.[13] As respondent admitted in her letter to the OCA, she had many absences in her three subjects because of her pregnancy and the preparations for her marriage; she was also not able to attend the commencement exercises. These, together with the lack of any diploma or transcript of records stating that she is a graduate, should have put her upon inquiry as to the fact of her having finished her degree. Her claim of good faith is clearly self-serving and does not absolve her from liability. | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the charge of dishonesty is a grave offense which, if duly proven, merits the penalty of dismissal from the service on commission of the first infraction.[7] | |||||
|
2005-02-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent's alleged lack of knowledge or good faith as to the authenticity of the Certificate of Eligibility will not hold water. Good faith requires honesty of intention, free from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put one upon inquiry.[12] In the case at bar, respondent, upon her receipt of the alleged erroneous Certificate of Eligibility (CS Professional), should have wondered why she received said certificate considering that she took a Career Service Subprofessional Examination and not a Career Service Professional Examination. She should have immediately reported the matter to the Regional Office No. 10 of the CSC so that the latter could have rectified any error stated in the Certificate of Eligibility. This, she did not do. Instead, she used this certificate to further her career by applying for a change of status from temporary to permanent which was eventually approved by Acting Court Administrator Jose P. Perez. | |||||
|
2004-03-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We have repeatedly said that persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence in the public service.[20] This Court will not tolerate dishonesty for the Judiciary expects the best from all its employees.[21] An employee, such as respondent, who falsifies an official document to gain unwarranted advantage over other more qualified applicants to the same position and secure the sought-after promotion cannot be said to have measured up to the standards required of a public servant.[22] | |||||
|
2003-12-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) is required under Civil Service Rules and Regulations for employment in the government. The making of an untruthful statement therein amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document that warrant dismissal from the service even on the first offense.[24] Of these offenses, respondent is clearly liable. | |||||