Lawyerly

AM No. P-15-3296

2015-02-17

PER CURIAM

In this case, Alcantara and Jacinto admitted to taking and encashing checks of their co-workers without permission. There is no doubt that their acts of repeatedly stealing the checks and forging the signatures of their co-workers constitute grave misconduct and dishonesty. Their alleged remorse for what they have done does not erase the transgression they committed. "This Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables who undermine its efforts toward an effective and efficient administration of justice, thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public."[36]

AM No. P-09-2644

2009-07-30

EDGARDO A. QUILO v. ROGELIO G. JUNDARINO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Court has even higher expectations from its sheriffs. Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and they should always invigorate and hold in violate the tenet that a public office is a public trust.[21] Being at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the court.[22] By the very nature of their functions, sheriffs must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, so as to be above suspicion.[23] Sheriffs cannot afford to err in serving court writs and processes and in implementing court orders, lest they undermine the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.[24]

AM No. P-09-2644

2009-06-30

EDGARDO A. QUILO v. ROGELIO G. JUNDARINO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Court has even higher expectations from its sheriffs. Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and they should always invigorate and hold in violate the tenet that a public office is a public trust.[21] Being at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the court.[22] By the very nature of their functions, sheriffs must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, so as to be above suspicion.[23] Sheriffs cannot afford to err in serving court writs and processes and in implementing court orders, lest they undermine the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.[24]

AM No. P-07-2400

2009-06-23

JUDGE ISIDRA A. ARGANOSA-MANIEGO v. ROGELIO T. SALINAS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Dishonesty, on the other hand, has been defined as the "(d)isposition 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."[22] Indeed, dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[23]

AM No. P-07-2335

2008-09-22

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. CARIDAD S. DASCO

PER CURIAM

Under the Civil Service Rules,[13] dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal which carries the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except leave credits pursuant to Rule 140, Section 11[1])[14] and disqualification from reemployment in the government service.[15]

AM No. P-04-1916

2008-08-11

OCA v. ARMAN Z. PANGANIBAN

PER CURIAM

A process server should be fully cognizant not only of the nature and responsibilities of his task but also of their impact on the administration of justice.[15] A process server, being a judicial employee, is expected to act with prudence, restraint, courtesy, and dignity. Respondent must remember the oft-quoted reminder to all who work in the judiciary that the conduct of everyone charged with the administration of justice - from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk - should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, free from any suspicion that may taint the well-guarded image of the judiciary. Being among those at the frontlines of our judicial machinery, process servers are in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the court.[16]

AM NO. P-03-1731

2006-11-30

PNB MANAGEMENT v. CARMELO CACHERO

PER CURIAM

Being in the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs are in close contact with litigants. Hence, their conduct should always aim to maintain the integrity of the court.[27] Sheriffs should strictly comply with the applicable rules and circulars in implementing court orders lest they undermine the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.[28]

AM NO. P-06-2204

2006-11-30

NYDIA S. SERVINO v. MA. MAWILYNN CONCEPCION B. ADOLFO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Anent the imposable penalty, it must be stressed that falsification of daily time records amounts to dishonesty. Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service.[15] Indeed, dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[16] This Court has defined dishonesty as the "(d)isposition 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.[17]

AM NO. 2005-26-SC

2006-11-22

RE: DROPPING FROM ROLLS OF MS. ESTHER T. ANDRES.

PER CURIAM

Indeed, dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[31] This Court has defined dishonesty as the "(d)isposition 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.[32]

AM NO. P-01-1523

2006-10-27

CARMELITA CHIONG v. SHERWIN BALOLOY

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Respondent must remember the oft-quoted reminder to all who work and seek employment in the judiciary that the conduct and behavior of everyone charged with the administration and disposition of justice - from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk - should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, free from any suspicion that may taint the well-guarded image of the judiciary. Being among those at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, process servers are in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the Court.[22]

AM NO. P-06-2243

2006-09-26

IN RE: IRREGULARITIES IN USE OF LOGBOOK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Anent the imposable penalty, it must be stressed that falsification of daily time records amounts to dishonesty. Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service.[20] Indeed, dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[21] This Court has defined dishonesty as the "(d)isposition 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.[22]

AM NO. P-05-2035

2006-07-31

ATTY. ALEXANDER L. BANSIL v. NELSON DE LEON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It must be stressed that sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them.[18] Being ranking officers of the court and agents of the law, they must discharge their duties with great care and diligence.[19] They should at all times show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of their duties as officers of the court.[20] Being at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs are in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the Court.[21] It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work there, from the judge to the lowest employee.[22] As such, the Court will not tolerate or condone any conduct of judicial agents or employees which tend to or actually diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[23]

	AM No. P-15-3296 2015-02-17	ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT PER CURIAM
In this case, Alcantara and Jacinto admitted to taking and encashing checks of their co-workers without permission. There is no doubt that their acts of repeatedly stealing the checks and forging the signatures of their co-workers constitute grave misconduct and dishonesty. Their alleged remorse for what they have done does not erase the transgression they committed. "This Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables who undermine its efforts toward an effective and efficient administration of justice, thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public."[36]
	AM No. P-09-2644 2009-07-30	EDGARDO A. QUILO v. ROGELIO G. JUNDARINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court has even higher expectations from its sheriffs. Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and they should always invigorate and hold in violate the tenet that a public office is a public trust.[21] Being at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the court.[22] By the very nature of their functions, sheriffs must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, so as to be above suspicion.[23] Sheriffs cannot afford to err in serving court writs and processes and in implementing court orders, lest they undermine the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.[24]
	AM No. P-09-2644 2009-06-30	EDGARDO A. QUILO v. ROGELIO G. JUNDARINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court has even higher expectations from its sheriffs. Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and they should always invigorate and hold in violate the tenet that a public office is a public trust.[21] Being at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the court.[22] By the very nature of their functions, sheriffs must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, so as to be above suspicion.[23] Sheriffs cannot afford to err in serving court writs and processes and in implementing court orders, lest they undermine the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.[24]
	AM No. P-07-2400 2009-06-23	JUDGE ISIDRA A. ARGANOSA-MANIEGO v. ROGELIO T. SALINAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Dishonesty, on the other hand, has been defined as the "(d)isposition 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."[22] Indeed, dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[23]
	AM No. P-07-2335 2008-09-22	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. CARIDAD S. DASCO PER CURIAM
Under the Civil Service Rules,[13] dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal which carries the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except leave credits pursuant to Rule 140, Section 11[1])[14] and disqualification from reemployment in the government service.[15]
	AM No. P-04-1916 2008-08-11	OCA v. ARMAN Z. PANGANIBAN PER CURIAM
A process server should be fully cognizant not only of the nature and responsibilities of his task but also of their impact on the administration of justice.[15] A process server, being a judicial employee, is expected to act with prudence, restraint, courtesy, and dignity. Respondent must remember the oft-quoted reminder to all who work in the judiciary that the conduct of everyone charged with the administration of justice - from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk - should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, free from any suspicion that may taint the well-guarded image of the judiciary. Being among those at the frontlines of our judicial machinery, process servers are in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the court.[16]
	AM NO. P-03-1731 2006-11-30	PNB MANAGEMENT v. CARMELO CACHERO PER CURIAM
Being in the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs are in close contact with litigants. Hence, their conduct should always aim to maintain the integrity of the court.[27] Sheriffs should strictly comply with the applicable rules and circulars in implementing court orders lest they undermine the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.[28]
	AM NO. P-06-2204 2006-11-30	NYDIA S. SERVINO v. MA. MAWILYNN CONCEPCION B. ADOLFO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Anent the imposable penalty, it must be stressed that falsification of daily time records amounts to dishonesty. Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service.[15] Indeed, dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[16] This Court has defined dishonesty as the "(d)isposition 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.[17]
	AM NO. 2005-26-SC 2006-11-22	RE: DROPPING FROM ROLLS OF MS. ESTHER T. ANDRES. PER CURIAM
Indeed, dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[31] This Court has defined dishonesty as the "(d)isposition 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.[32]
	AM NO. P-01-1523 2006-10-27	CARMELITA CHIONG v. SHERWIN BALOLOY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Respondent must remember the oft-quoted reminder to all who work and seek employment in the judiciary that the conduct and behavior of everyone charged with the administration and disposition of justice - from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk - should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, free from any suspicion that may taint the well-guarded image of the judiciary. Being among those at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, process servers are in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the Court.[22]
	AM NO. P-06-2243 2006-09-26	IN RE: IRREGULARITIES IN USE OF LOGBOOK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Anent the imposable penalty, it must be stressed that falsification of daily time records amounts to dishonesty. Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service.[20] Indeed, dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[21] This Court has defined dishonesty as the "(d)isposition 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.[22]
	AM NO. P-05-2035 2006-07-31	ATTY. ALEXANDER L. BANSIL v. NELSON DE LEON CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them.[18] Being ranking officers of the court and agents of the law, they must discharge their duties with great care and diligence.[19] They should at all times show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of their duties as officers of the court.[20] Being at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs are in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the Court.[21] It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work there, from the judge to the lowest employee.[22] As such, the Court will not tolerate or condone any conduct of judicial agents or employees which tend to or actually diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[23]

MARILOU A. CABANATAN v. CRISOSTOMO T. MOLINA