Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. CARLOS P. RILLORAZA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 196142 2014-03-26	VENUS B. CASTILLO v. PRUDENTIALIFE PLANS DEL CASTILLO, J.
For their dishonesty, the penalty of dismissal is justified pursuant to Section 2.6 (i) of the Prudentialife Personnel Manual which prescribes the penalty of dismissal for acts of padding receipts for reimbursement or liquidation of advances or expenses. Dishonesty is a serious offense, and "no employer will take to its bosom a dishonest employee."[38] Dishonesty implies a "[d]isposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity[; l]ack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray."[39] Acts of dishonesty have been held to be sufficient grounds for dismissal as a measure of self-protection on the part of the employer.[40]
	AM No. P-09-2660 2011-11-29	FRANCISCO C. TAGUINOD v. DEPUTY SHERIFF ROLANDO TOMAS PER CURIAM
The administrative offense of dishonesty connotes "x x x untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle x x x."[11] We quote with approval the OCA investigator's explanation to hold respondent liable for this offense
	GR No. 171434 2010-04-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ALAN A. OLANDESCA PERALTA, J.
The Court agrees with the factual findings of the CA. In Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Rilloroza, [12] dishonesty is defined as 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.
	AM No. P-08-2469 2009-04-24	ERLINA P. JOLITO v. MARLENE E. TANUDRA PER CURIAM
Gross misconduct has been defined as the transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence. Dishonesty on the other hand is the "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle."[17]
	AM No. 09-2-19-SC 2009-02-24	IN RE: UNDATED LETTER OF MR. LOUIS C. BIRAOGO v. NOGRALES PER CURIAM
PAGCOR v. Rilloza, [260] in fact, commands persons who routinely handle confidential matters to be confidential employees. They are thus expected to be more careful than an ordinary employee in their day to day business. They are reposed such trust and confidence that a breach of their duty would mean breach of trust. As applied to the case of Justice Reyes, the breach of duty amounts to breach of public trust as the committee believes that the leak was motivated by self-interest.
	GR NO. 159314 2006-06-26	EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA QUISUMBING, J.
The same findings sustain the conclusion that Estarija is guilty of dishonesty. The term dishonesty implies 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.[18] Patently, petitioner had been dishonest about accepting money from DPAI.
	GR No. 142937 2005-11-15	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. MARITA A. ANGARA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Rilloraza,[39] the Court, in reiterating the foregoing pronouncements, further stated that:Justice Regalado's incisive discourse yields three (3) important points: first, the classification of a particular position as primarily confidential, policy-determining or highly technical amounts to no more than an executive or legislative declaration that is not conclusive upon the courts, the true test being the nature of the position. Second, whether primarily confidential, policy-determining or highly technical, the exemption provided in the Charter pertains to exemption from competitive examination to determine merit and fitness to enter the civil service. Such employees are still protected by the mantle of security of tenure. Last, and more to the point, Section 16 of P.D. 1869, insofar as it declares all positions within PAGCOR as primarily confidential, is not absolutely binding on the courts.[40]