This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The settled rule provides that factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed by the CA.[19] Furthermore, only questions of law may be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; the Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to review evidence on record and assess the probative weight thereof.[20] | |||||
|
2012-07-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| There are substantial distinctions that set apart presidential appointees occupying upper-level positions in government from non-presidential appointees and those that occupy the lower positions in government. In Salumbides v. Office of the Ombudsman,[34] we had ruled extensively on the substantial distinctions that exist between elective and appointive public officials, thus: Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive officials. The former occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. | |||||
|
2012-01-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We find it worthy to state at this point that public service requires integrity and discipline. For this reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and dedication to duty. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, public officers and employees must faithfully adhere to hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; and must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[59] | |||||
|
2011-02-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference.[68] In this regard, the Court finds Parungao, as HRMO, guilty of simple neglect of duty. Given her duties under the CSC Accreditation Program, she should have been aware of the reportorial requirements, and of the fact that it is the CSC which has authority over appointments, and not the DBM. Had she given the proper attention to her responsibility as HRMO, the first set of appointment papers would never have been issued, thereby avoiding the present predicament altogether. | |||||