legal ethics

5/27/2018 Legal Ethics

1/17

LEGAL ETHICS

voluntary intimacy between a man and a woman who are not married, where both are

not under any impediment to marry and where no deceit exists, is neither a criminal

nor an unprincipled act that would warrant disbarment or disciplinary action

Posted onMarch 8, 2012 byErineus

The Investigating Judge recommends the dismissal of the complaint against the respondent, reporting that:

Normally the personal affair of a court employee who is a bachelor and has maintained an amorous relation with a

woman equally unmarried has nothing to do with his public employment. The sexual liaison is between two consenting

adults and the consequent pregnancy is but a natural effect of the physical intimacy. Mary Jane was not forced to live with

Nicolas nor was she impelled by some devious means or machination. The fact was, she freely acceded to cohabit with

him. The situation may-not-be-so-ideal but it does not give cause for administrative sanction. There appears no law which

penalizes or prescribes the sexual activity of two unmarried persons. So, the accusation of Mary Jane that Nicolas initiated

the abortion was calculated to bring the act within the ambit of an immoral, disgraceful and gross misconduct. Except

however as to the self-serving assertion that Mary Jane was brought to a local midwife and forced to take the abortifacient,

there was no other evidence to support that it was in fact so. All pointed to a harmonious relation that turned sour. In no

small way Mary Jane was also responsible of what befell upon her.[3]

The Court defined immoral conduct as conduct that is willful, flagrant or shameless, and that shows a moral indifference

to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.[4]To justify suspension or disbarment, the act

complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral.[5]A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false

as to constitute a criminal act or an act so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree.[6]

Based on the allegations of the complaint, the respondents comment, and the findings of the Investigating Judge, we find

that the acts complained of cannot be considered as disgraceful or grossly immoral conduct.

We find it evident that the sexual relations between the complainant and the respondent were consensual. They met at the

Singles for Christ, started dating and subsequently became sweethearts. The respondent frequently visited the

complainant at her boarding house and also at her parents residence. The complainant voluntarily yielded to therespondent and they eventually lived together as husband and wife in a rented room near the respondents office. They

continued their relationship even after the complainant had suffered a miscarriage.

Mere sexual relations between two unmmaried and consenting adults are not enough to warrant administrative sanction

for illicit behavior.[7]The Court has repeatedly held that voluntary intimacy between a man and a woman who are not

married, where both are not under any impediment to marry and where no deceit exists, is neither a criminal nor an

unprincipled act that would warrant disbarment or disciplinary action.[8]

While the Court has the power to regulate official conduct and, to a certain extent, private conduct, it is not within our

authority to decide on matters touching on employees personal lives, especially those that will affect their and their

familys future. We cannot intrude into the question of whether they should or should not marry.[9]However, we takethis occasion to remind judiciary employees to be more circumspect in their adherence to their obligations under the Code

of Professional Responsibility. The conduct of court personnel must be free from any taint of impropriety or scandal, not

only with respect to their official duties but also in their behavior outside the Court as private individuals. This is the best

way to preserve and protect the integrity and the good name of our courts.[10]

WHEREFORE,the Court resolves to DISMISSthe present administrative complaint against Nicolas B. Mabute,

Stenographer 1 of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Paranas,Samar, for lack of merit. No costs.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/P-11-2922.htm

Clerk of court who is dismissed from service is proper considering her failure to

exercise supervision over her administrative staff resulting in commission of blatantinfractions against the Rules


It is evident in her Explanation that Atty. Lometillo preferred to shift responsibility over fund shortages to her

administrative staff. With exoneration in mind, she desperately tried to convince the Court that she did everything

possible to come up with a competent flow of functions in her office, but to no avail. Atty. Lometillo, in fact, designated

the other respondents to functions which she herself should have performed, or at least closely monitored, she was

unmindful of her duty topersonallyattend to the collection of the fees, the safekeeping of the money thus collected, the

making of the proper entries thereof in the corresponding book of accounts, and the deposit of the same in the offices

concerned.[47]

Her so-called office memoranda, apprising her co-employees of their tasks in handling the finances of the Court can only

provide as much leverage in her favor, but surely, absolution for the fund shortages which ballooned over time, is not

forthcoming.
http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/voluntary-intimacy-between-a-man-and-a-woman-who-are-not-married-where-both-are-not-under-any-impediment-to-marry-and-where-no-deceit-exists-is-neither-a-criminal-nor-an-unprincipled-act-that-would/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/voluntary-intimacy-between-a-man-and-a-woman-who-are-not-married-where-both-are-not-under-any-impediment-to-marry-and-where-no-deceit-exists-is-neither-a-criminal-nor-an-unprincipled-act-that-would/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/voluntary-intimacy-between-a-man-and-a-woman-who-are-not-married-where-both-are-not-under-any-impediment-to-marry-and-where-no-deceit-exists-is-neither-a-criminal-nor-an-unprincipled-act-that-would/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/voluntary-intimacy-between-a-man-and-a-woman-who-are-not-married-where-both-are-not-under-any-impediment-to-marry-and-where-no-deceit-exists-is-neither-a-criminal-nor-an-unprincipled-act-that-would/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn3http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn3http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn3http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn4http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn4http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn4http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn5http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn5http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn5http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn6http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn6http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn6http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn7http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn7http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn7http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn8http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn8http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn8http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn9http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn9http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn9http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn10http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn10http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/P-11-2922.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/P-11-2922.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn48http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn48http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn48http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn48http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/P-11-2922.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn10http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn9http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn8http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn7http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn6http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn5http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn4http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn3http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/voluntary-intimacy-between-a-man-and-a-woman-who-are-not-married-where-both-are-not-under-any-impediment-to-marry-and-where-no-deceit-exists-is-neither-a-criminal-nor-an-unprincipled-act-that-would/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/voluntary-intimacy-between-a-man-and-a-woman-who-are-not-married-where-both-are-not-under-any-impediment-to-marry-and-where-no-deceit-exists-is-neither-a-criminal-nor-an-unprincipled-act-that-would/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/voluntary-intimacy-between-a-man-and-a-woman-who-are-not-married-where-both-are-not-under-any-impediment-to-marry-and-where-no-deceit-exists-is-neither-a-criminal-nor-an-unprincipled-act-that-would/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/voluntary-intimacy-between-a-man-and-a-woman-who-are-not-married-where-both-are-not-under-any-impediment-to-marry-and-where-no-deceit-exists-is-neither-a-criminal-nor-an-unprincipled-act-that-would/


2/17

In the recent case of OCA v. Penaranda and Mediante,[48]a Clerk of Court delegated the handling of the financial

matters of the court to her trustworthy cashier including actual possession of court collections and issuance of receipts.

Like Atty. Lometillo, the Clerk of Court claimed that she signs the deposit slips every day, but whether or not all

collections were actually deposited, she was unaware. The Court had this to say:

While Pearanda was not the custodian of the courts collection and she, instead, delegated said function to Mediante,

still, the expectation that she would perform all the duties and responsibilities of a Clerk of Court is not

diminished. Indeed, the fact that Mediante was the one tasked to deposit the court collections does not absolve

Pearanda from liability, since the duty to remit court collections remains with her as the clerk of court, albeit, in thiscase, she was supposed to monitor that the same was being carried out.

x x x Both have been remiss in their duty to remit the collections within a prescribed period and are liable for keeping

funds in their custody Pearanda as the one responsible for monitoring the courts financial transactions and Mediante

as the one in whom such functions are reposed. Undoubtedly, Pearanda and Mediante violated the trust reposed in them

as disbursement officers of the judiciary. Thus, they should be held liable for the shortages mentioned above. [Emphasis

supplied]

x x x x

Based on the foregoing findings, Atty. Lometillo had clearly failed to live up to the standards of competence and integrityexpected of an officer of the court. Mediocrity is not at all fit for a member of a complement tasked to dispense justice.

Her failure to exhibit administrative leadership and ability renders Atty. Lometillo guilty of negligence, incompetence and

gross inefficiency in the performance of her official duty as Clerk of Court. Thus, the penalty of dismissal from service is

proper considering her failure to exercise supervision over her administrative staff resulting in commission of blatant

infractions against the Rules. In view of Atty. Lometillos compulsory retirement, however, the imposition of accessory

penalties, including the forfeiture of her retirement benefits, is justified.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2637.htmPosted inJudicial and Legal Ethics | TaggedClerk of court who is dismissed from service is proper considering her failure to exercise supervision over her

administrative staff resulting in commission of blatant infractions against the Rules | Leave a comment

Grounds for administrative disciplinary action


RULE X. GROUNDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY ACTION

SECTION 1. In addition to the grounds for administrative disciplinary action prescribed under existing laws, the acts and

omissions of any official or employee, whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, hold-over,

permanent or regular capacity, declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code, shall constitute grounds for administrative

disciplinary action, and without prejudice to criminal and civil liabilities provided herein, such as:

(a) Directly or indirectly having financial and material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of his office. x x x.

(b) Owning, controlling, managing or accepting employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent,

trustee, or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by his office, unless expressly allowed by

law;

(c) Engaging in the private practice of his profession unless authorized by the Constitution, law or regulation, provided

that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his official functions;

(d) Recommending any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending official transactionwith his office, unless such recommendation or referral is mandated by (1) law, or (2) international agreements,

commitment and obligation, or as part of the functions of his office;

x x x x

(e) Disclosing or misusing confidential or classified information officially known to him by reason of his office and not

made available to the public, to further his private interests or give undue advantage to anyone, or to prejudice the public

interest;

(f) Soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary

value which in the course of his official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction

which may be affected by the functions of, his office. x x x.
http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn49http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn49http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2637.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2637.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/judicial-and-legal-ethics/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/grounds-for-administrative-disciplinary-action/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/grounds-for-administrative-disciplinary-action/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/grounds-for-administrative-disciplinary-action/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/grounds-for-administrative-disciplinary-action/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/clerk-of-court-who-is-dismissed-from-service-is-proper-considering-her-failure-to-exercise-supervision-over-her-administrative-staff-resulting-in-commission-of-blatant-infractions-against-the-rules/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/judicial-and-legal-ethics/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2637.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn49


3/17

x x x x

(g) Obtaining or using any statement filed under the Code for any purpose contrary to morals or public policy or any

commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the general public;

(h) Unfair discrimination in rendering public service due to party affiliation or preference;

(i) Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines and to the Filipino people;

(j) Failure to act promptly on letters and request within fifteen (15) days from receipt, except as otherwise provided in

these Rules;

(k) Failure to process documents and complete action on documents and papers within a reasonable time from

preparation thereof, except as otherwise provided in these Rules;

(l) Failure to attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of the office, or to act promptly and expeditiously

on public personal transactions;

(m) Failure to file sworn statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, and disclosure of business interests and financial

connections; and

(n) Failure to resign from his position in the private business enterprise within thirty (30) days from assumption of public

office when conflict of interest arises, and/or failure to divest himself of his shareholdings or interests in private business

enterprise within sixty (60) days from such assumption of public office when conflict of interest arises:Provided, however,

that for those who are already in the service and a conflict of interest arises, the official or employee must either resign or

divest himself of said interests within the periods herein-above provided, reckoned from the date when the conflict of

interest had arisen.

InDomingo v. Office of the Ombudsman,[20]this Court had the occasion to rule that failure to abide by the normsof conduct under Section 4(A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713, in relation to its implementing rules, is not a ground for disciplinary

action, to wit:

The charge of violation of Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 deserves further comment. The provision commands that

public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence,

professionalism, intelligence and skill. Said provision merely enunciates professionalism as an ideal norm of conduct to

be observed by public servants, in addition to commitment to public interest, justness and sincerity, political neutrality,

responsiveness to the public, nationalism and patriotism, commitment to democracy and simple living. Following this

perspective, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 6713 adopted by the Civil Service Commission mandates the

grant of incentives and rewards to officials and employees who demonstrate exemplary service and conduct based on their

observance of the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4. In other words, under the mandated incentives and rewards

system, officials and employees who comply with the high standard set by law would be rewarded. Those who fail to do so

cannot expect the same favorable treatment. However, the Implementing Rules does not provide that they will

have to be sanctioned for failure to observe these norms of conduct. Indeed, Rule X of the Implementing

Rules affirms as grounds for administrative disciplinary action only acts declared unlawful or

prohibited by the Code. Rule X specifically mentions at least twenty three (23) acts or omissions as

grounds for administrative disciplinary action. Failure to abide by the norms of conduct under Section

4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 is not one of them.(Emphasis supplied.)

Consequently, the Court dismissed the charge of violation of Section 4(A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713 in that case.

We find no compelling reason to depart from our pronouncement inDomingo. Thus, we reverse the CA and

Ombudsman that petitioner is administratively liable under Section 4(A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713. In so ruling, we do no less

and no more than apply the law and its implementing rules issued by the CSC under the authority given to it by Congress.

Needless to stress, said rules partake the nature of a statute and are binding as if written in the law itself. They have the

force and effect of law and enjoy the presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside with finality in an

appropriate case by a competent court.[21]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmPosted inCivil Service Commision,Civil Service Law,Public Official/Employees |Leave a comment

Incentive and Rewards System for public officials


In addition to its directive under Section 4(B), Congress authorized [19]the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to

promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement R.A. No. 6713. Accordingly, the CSC issued the Rules

Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (hereafter, Implementing

Rules). Rule V of the Implementing Rules provides for an Incentive and Rewards System for public officials and
http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn20http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn20http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn20http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn21http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn21http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/civil-service-commision/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/civil-service-law/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/public-officialemployees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/grounds-for-administrative-disciplinary-action/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/incentive-and-rewards-system-for-public-officials/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/incentive-and-rewards-system-for-public-officials/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn19http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn19http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn19http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/incentive-and-rewards-system-for-public-officials/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/incentive-and-rewards-system-for-public-officials/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/grounds-for-administrative-disciplinary-action/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/public-officialemployees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/civil-service-law/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/civil-service-commision/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn21http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn20


4/17

employees who have demonstrated exemplary service and conduct on the basis of their observance of the norms of

conduct laid down in Section 4 of R.A. No. 6713, to wit:

RULE V. INCENTIVES AND REWARDS SYSTEM

SECTION 1. Incentives and rewards shall be granted officials and employees who have demonstrated exemplary service

and conduct on the basis of their observance of the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4 of the Code, namely:

(a) Commitment to public interest. x x x

(b)Professionalism. x x x(c)Justness and sincerity. x x x

(d)Political neutrality. x x x

(e)Responsiveness to the public. x x x

(f)Nationalism and patriotism. x x x

(g) Commitment to democracy. x x x

(h)Simple living. x x x

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmPosted inCivil Service Commision,Public Official/Employees | Leave a comment

Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees


We quote the full text of Section 4 of R.A. No. 6713:

SEC. 4.Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees.(A) Every public official and employee shall observe the

following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:

(a) Commitment to public interest. Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above

personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently,

effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.

(b)Professionalism. - Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of

excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication toduty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of

undue patronage.

(c)Justness and sincerity. Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act

with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They

shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs,

public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of

their office to their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to appointments of such relatives to

positions considered strictly confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.

(d)Political neutrality. Public officials and employees shall provide service to everyone without unfair discrimination

and regardless of party affiliation or preference.(e)Responsiveness to the public. Public officials and employees shall extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to

the public. Unless otherwise provided by law or when required by the public interest, public officials and employees shall

provide information on their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language, ensure openness of

information, public consultations and hearings whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize

policy, rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an understanding and appreciation of the socioeconomic

conditions prevailing in the country, especially in the depressed rural and urban areas.

(f)Nationalism and patriotism. Public officials and employees shall at all times be loyal to the Republic and to the

Filipino people, promote the use of locally-produced goods, resources and technology and encourage appreciation and

pride of country and people. They shall endeavor to maintain and defend Philippine sovereignty against foreign intrusion.

(g) Commitment to democracy. Public officials and employees shall commit themselves to the democratic way of life

and values, maintain the principle of public accountability, and manifest by deed the supremacy of civilian authority over

the military. They shall at all times uphold the Constitution and put loyalty to country above loyalty to persons or party.

(h)Simple living. Public officials and employees and their families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions

and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.

(B) The Civil Service Commission shall adopt positive measures to promote (1) observance of these standards including

the dissemination of information programs and workshops authorizing merit increases beyond regular progression steps,

to a limited number of employees recognized by their office colleagues to be outstanding in their observance of ethical

standards; and (2) continuing research and experimentation on measures which provide positive motivation to public

officials and employees in raising the general level of observance of these standards.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmPosted inPublic Official/Employees | TaggedNorms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees |Leave a comment
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/civil-service-commision/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/public-officialemployees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/incentive-and-rewards-system-for-public-officials/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/norms-of-conduct-of-public-officials-and-employees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/norms-of-conduct-of-public-officials-and-employees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/public-officialemployees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/norms-of-conduct-of-public-officials-and-employees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/norms-of-conduct-of-public-officials-and-employees/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/norms-of-conduct-of-public-officials-and-employees/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/norms-of-conduct-of-public-officials-and-employees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/public-officialemployees/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/norms-of-conduct-of-public-officials-and-employees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/norms-of-conduct-of-public-officials-and-employees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/incentive-and-rewards-system-for-public-officials/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/public-officialemployees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/civil-service-commision/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htm


5/17

administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings, and may

continue despite the dismissal of the criminal charges


On the second issue, it is wrong for petitioner to say that since the estafacase against her was dismissed, she cannot be

found administratively liable. It is settled that administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings,

and may continue despite the dismissal of the criminal charges.[17]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmPosted inAdministrative Law | Taggedadministrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings and may continue despite the dismissal of thecriminal charges |Leave a comment

Does the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over respondentscomplaint against petitioner

although the act complained of involves a private deal between them


On the first issue, we agree with the CA that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over respondents complaint against

petitioner although the act complained of involves a private deal between them.[12] Section 13(1),[13]Article XI of

the 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman can investigate on its own or on complaint by any person any act or

omission of any public official or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, or improper. Under

Section 16[14]of R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as theOmbudsman Act of 1989, the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman

encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any public officer or employee during

his/her tenure. Section 19[15]of R.A. No. 6770 also states that the Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but

not limited, to acts or omissions which are unfair or irregular. Thus, even if the complaint concerns an act of the public

official or employee which is not service-connected, the case is within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The law does

not qualify the nature of the illegal act or omission of the public official or employee that the Ombudsman may

investigate. It does not require that the act or omission be related to or be connected with or arise from the performance

of official duty. Since the law does not distinguish, neither should we.[16]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmPosted inJurisdiction,Ombudsman, Question and Answers | TaggedDoes the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over respondentscomplaint against petitioner

although the act complained of involves a private deal between them |Leave a comment

Legal researher is liable under Rule IV, Section 52 (A) 20 for conduct prejudicial to the

best interest of the service in view of her act of offering her services for facilitation of

the land transfer papers at the BIR


In her motion, Hernando repleads the assertions in her memorandum and prays that a more severe penalty should be

imposed on Bengson. According to her, respondent being a court employee she had no business offering her services for

facilitation of the land transfer papers at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).Such actuation is conduct prejudicial to

the best interest of the service, and thus should be punished for such act pursuant to the ruling in Largo v. CA.[2]In

addition, she prays that the amount of P76,000.00 that was given to respondent should be considered as a just debt and,

therefore, she should be made to answer for the same from her salary.[3]

In her Comment, Bengson counters that she merely accommodated the request for help from Hernandos own daughter.

She insists that she had no interest whatsoever in the facilitation of the said land transfer papers.[4]

The Court stands pat in its earlier holding that:

In the present case, the OCA (Office of the Court Administrator) found, and we agree, that Bengsons complicity in the

failed titling of the property eyed by Hernando was manifest.

Based on the trial judges investigation and that of the OCA, Bengson offered to help Hernando find a surveyor for a fee,

and she was the very same one who directly received the money intended for the titling of the property. To Hernandosdismay, Villacorte did not turn out to be the expert that she was made to believe. To our mind, i t was the very

misrepresentation that precipitated the transaction that eventually defrauded Hernando. Complainant would not have

parted with her hard-earned money were it not for Bengsons misrepresentation with respect to Villacortes capacity to

facilitate the titling of the property. Respondent cannot extricate herself by claiming that she had no direct participation in

the negotiations.[5]

This is buttressed by the report of the investigating judge, Executive Judge Teodoro A. Bay (Judge Bay).Although Judge

Bay did opine in his report that the above transaction was purely private in character and that there was no showing that

respondent took advantage of her position as legal researcher of the court, he did conclude:

x x x. The respondent, therefore, insofar as the complainant was concerned, was the person responsible for the package

contract for which reason all communication from the Hernandos were directed to her. Moreover, respondentacknowledged to have received after repeated calls/demands from the complainant.[6]

The above finding is likewise affirmed by the OCA. Through then Court Administrator and now Associate Justice of the

Supreme Court, Justice Jose P. Perez, it made the following observation:
http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn17http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn17http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/administrative-law/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn12http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn12http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn12http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn13http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn13http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn13http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn14http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn14http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn15http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn15http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn15http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn16http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn16http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/jurisdiction/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/ombudsman/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/question-and-answers/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn2http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn2http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn2http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn3http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn3http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn3http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn4http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn4http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn4http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn5http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn5http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn5http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn6http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn6http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn6http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn6http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn5http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn4http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn3http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn2http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/question-and-answers/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/ombudsman/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/jurisdiction/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn16http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn15http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn14http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn13http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn12http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/does-the-ombudsman-has-jurisdiction-over-respondents-complaint-against-petitioner-although-the-act-complained-of-involves-a-private-deal-between-them/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/administrative-law/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn17http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/administrative-cases-may-proceed-independently-of-criminal-proceedings-and-may-continue-despite-the-dismissal-of-the-criminal-charges/


6/17

In the instant case, the participation of respondent Bengson, in the failed titling of the property being eyed by the family of

the complainant, cannot be denied. From the facts ascertained by the investigating judge, it was respondent who offered to

help the complainant find a surveyor, in exchange for a fee. It was also established in the investigation that respondent

directly received money from the complainant. To aggravate the situation, the surveyor, Maritess Villacorte, whom

respondent recommended, did not turn out to be the expert complainant had expected.

Complainant would not have parted with her hard-earned money, if not for the assurances she received from the

respondent. The seed of the fraudulent transaction would not have been planted if respondent did not offer her servicesin the first place.[7]

The complicity of Bengson was very apparent. During the hearing before Judge Bay, she admitted that it was she together

with her husband who went to see Hernando at the latters residence sometime in September 2002 in order to explain

the package for facilitation of the land transfer papers of the subject property at the BIR.[8]Certainly, no disinterested or

uninvolved person would go so far as to pay a visit to someone whom she had not met before just to relay the package

contract allegedly offered by her half-sister and niece, unless she herself was very much involved in it or, at the least,

would benefit from the arrangement.

Bengson also admitted that when she went to Hernandos residence for the second time, she was accompanied by her half-

sister and niece purportedly to explain and reduce the package contract cost from P100,000.00 to 70,000.00. In the

meeting, payment was agreed to be paid through her (Bengson).[9]Later in her testimony, Bengson admitted havingreceived the amount of P70,000.00 from Hernando in the presence of her half-sister and niece.[10]

While Bengson claimed that she immediately turned over the full amount to her half -sister and her niece at the time that

they were still at Hernandos residence, the receipt covering the amount was only issued when she allegedly chanced upon

them at McDonalds in April of the following year. The Court is of the considered view that it is nothing but a desperate

attempt on the part of Bengson to distance herself from the deal made with Hernando.

Thus, the Court is not ready to depart from its original finding with respect to the complicity of Bengson in the

wrongdoing against Hernando. What remains to be resolved now in this motion for reconsideration is whether Bengson

should be held liable for Simple Misconduct or for Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service?

In resolving this issue, a review of the Courts disposition in the case ofLargo v. CA[11]is instructive. In that case, it was

explained that an administrative offense constitutes misconduct when it has a direct relation to, and is connected with,

the performance of the official duties of the one charged.

x x x. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such

only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate

the character of the man from the character of the officer, x x x. It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance

warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official

duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the

office, x x x.[12]

Thus, misconduct refers to a transgression of an established and definite rule of action, more specifically, some unlawful

behavior or gross negligence by the public officer charged.[13]

It must be noted however that in this case, no proof was offered to show that Largos actions being complained of were

related to, or performed by him in taking advantage of, his position. His actions did not have any direct relation to or

connection with the performance of his official duties. Hence, it was concluded that Largo acted in his private capacity,

and thus, could not be made liable for misconduct.[14]But, considering that Largos questioned conduct tarnished the

image and integrity of his public office, he was still held liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The basis for his liability was found in Republic Act No. 6713 (R.A. 6713) or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for

Public Officials and Employees. The Code, particularly Section 4 (c) thereof, commands that public officials and employees

shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to public safety and public interest.

Largos actuations fell short of this standard.[15]

Similarly, applying the same standard to the present case, the Court agrees with the position taken by Hernando that

Bengson should be liable under Rule IV, Section 52 (A) 20 for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in view

of her act of offering her services for facilitation of the land transfer papers at the BIR and representing that her half-sister

and niece had the power, influence and capacity to facilitate the titling of subject property.

Following the standard set forth in R.A. No. 6713, Bengson should not have offered the so called package contract and

asked for a considerable amount from Hernando knowing that her half-sister and niece were neither

geodetic engineers nor employees of the BIR knowledgeable in the preparation of the necessary papers and documents for

the titling of the subject property. Certainly, this misrepresentation on the part of Bengson begrimed both the image and

integrity of her office.

At this point, the Court would like to once again underscore that the conduct of every court personnel must be beyond

reproach and free from suspicion that may cause to sully the image of the judiciary. They must totally avoid any
http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn7http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn7http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn7http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn8http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn8http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn8http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn9http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn9http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn9http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn10http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn10http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn10http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn11http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn11http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn12http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn12http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn12http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn13http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn13http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn13http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn14http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn14http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn14http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn15http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn15http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn15http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn15http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn14http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn13http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn12http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn11http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn10http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn9http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn8http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn7


7/17

impression of impropriety, misdeed or misdemeanor not only in the performance of their official duties but also in

conducting themselves outside or beyond the duties and functions of their office. Every court personnel are enjoined to

conduct themselves toward maintaining the prestige and integrity of the judiciary for the very image of the latter is

necessarily mirrored in their conduct, both official and otherwise. They must not forget that they are an integral part of

that organ of the government sacredly tasked in dispensing justice. Their conduct and behavior, therefore, should not only

be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility but at all times be defined by propriety and decorum, and above

all else beyond any suspicion.[16]

With Bengsons complicity in the scam or fraud against Hernando, she is undeniably guilty of conduct prejudicial to thebest interest of the service which is punishable by suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first

offense pursuant to Section 52 A (20) of the Uniform Rules of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2686.htmPosted inJudicial and Legal Ethics | TaggedLegal researher is liable under Rule IV Section 52 (A) 20 for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in

view of her act of offering her services for facilitation of the land transfer| 1 Comment

Can the employee be ordered by the court to return the money, thus, making the court

a collecting agent?


As regards Hernandos prayer that Bengson be ordered to return the money in the amount ofP76,000.00, the Court

resolves to reconsider its earlier disposition. While Courts should refrain from becoming a collection agent, it cannot

simply shy away from setting right those that are evidently or obviously improper acts or conducts among its personnel,

and instead,

order them to do what is but proper and just.[17]In this case, what is right and just under the circumstances is to order

the respondent to pay her obligation to the private complainant. In the case of Villaseor v. de Leon,[18]it was written:

Truly, this Court is not a collection agency for faltering debtors. Hence, in a disciplinary proceeding, we cannot adjudicate

on the existence and amount of the loan if such facts are disputed by the parties. 10At the same time, it is not proper in

these proceedings to issue writs of execution or order the levy of respondents properties, including her salaries to satisfy

the indebtedness. For, the purpose of an administrative proceeding is to protect public service and maintain its dignity

based on the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust. Evidently, disciplinary cases involve no private

interest and afford no redress for private grievance, as they are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare.

The complainant or the person who calls the attention of the court to the alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and

has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper management of justice.

Consistent with the realm of an administrative case, we are dutybound to correct whatever we perceive as an improper

conduct among court employees by ordering them to do what is proper in the premises. In the instant case, therefore, we

direct respondent to pay her indebtedness to complainant, i.e., inclusive of principal and interest agreed upon, in

accordance with their agreement, if any, or within a reasonable time from receipt of this Decision. A violation of this order

could become the basis of another administrative charge for a second offense of willful failure to pay just debts

punishable by suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days, among other serious charges arising from a willful violation of a

lawful order of this Court. With this command, we hope that respondent will stay away from such misdeed and shun a

subsequent offense of the same nature, or any other offense for that matter.

The payment of respondents debt is in addition to the penalty of reprimand with warning that commission of the same or

similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. This ruling should suffice to accomplish the purpose of

disciplining an erring court employee to whom a passage in the Book of Proverbs must have a reverberating significance,

A single reprimand does more for a man of intelligence than a hundred lashes for a fool.

Considering that Bengson, in her comment on Hernandos motion for reconsideration offered to restitute the said amount

without admitting guilt but only to buy peace; that her complicity in the so called package contract remains; that he did

admit having received the amount of P70,000.00 during her testimony before the investigating judge, the Court now

resolves and orders the restitution of the said amount of P76,000.00 plus legal interest starting from the year 2003.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2686.htmPosted inJudicial and Legal Ethics | TaggedCan the employee be ordered by the court to return the money thus making the court a collecting agent? |Leave a

comment

Judges act of collecting or receiving money from a litigant constitutes grave misconduct inoffice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/MTJ-08-1727.htm

Judges concealment of his direct participation in elections while remaining in the judiciarys payroll and his vain

attempt to mislead the Court by his claim of forgery, are patent acts of dishonesty rendering him unfit to remain in

the judiciary

Posted onFebruary 28, 2012byErineus

We find the OCAs recommendation to be well-founded. Judge Limbona committed grave offenses which rendered

him unfit to continue as a member of the Judiciary. When he was appointed as a judge, he took an oath to uphold

the law, yet in filing a certificate of candidacy as a party-list representative in the May 1998 elections without giving up

his judicial post, Judge Limbona violated not only the law, but the constitutional mandate that no officer or employee in

the civil service shall engage directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign.[19]
http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn16http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn16http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2686.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2686.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/judicial-and-legal-ethics/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/#commentshttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn17http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn17http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn17http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn18http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn18http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2686.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2686.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/judicial-and-legal-ethics/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-act-of-collecting-or-receiving-money-from-a-litigant-constitutes-grave-misconduct-in-office/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-act-of-collecting-or-receiving-money-from-a-litigant-constitutes-grave-misconduct-in-office/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-act-of-collecting-or-receiving-money-from-a-litigant-constitutes-grave-misconduct-in-office/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/MTJ-08-1727.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/MTJ-08-1727.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/11/#_ftn19http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/11/#_ftn19http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/11/#_ftn19http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/11/#_ftn19http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/MTJ-08-1727.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-act-of-collecting-or-receiving-money-from-a-litigant-constitutes-grave-misconduct-in-office/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/judicial-and-legal-ethics/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2686.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn18http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn17http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/can-the-employee-be-ordered-by-the-court-to-return-the-money-thus-making-the-court-a-collecting-agent/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/#commentshttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/legal-researher-is-liable-under-rule-iv-section-52-a-20-for-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-best-interest-of-the-service-in-view-of-her-act-of-offering-her-services-for-facilitation-of-the-land-transfer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/judicial-and-legal-ethics/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/P-09-2686.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn16


8/17

The NBI investigation on the authenticity of Judge Limbonas signatures on the certificate of candidacy unqualifiedly

established that the judge signed the certificate of candidacy for the May 1998 elections, thus negating his claim that his

signatures were forged. The filing of a certificate of candidacy is a partisan political activity as the candidate thereby

offers himself to the electorate for an elective post.

For his continued performance of his judicial duties despite his candidacy for a political post, Judge Limbona is guilty of

grave misconduct in office. While we cannot interfere with Judge Limbonas political aspirations, we cannot allow him to

pursue his political goals while still on the bench. We cannot likewise allow him to deceive the Judiciary. We find

relevant the OCAs observation on this point:

x x x Judge Limbonas concealment of his direct participation in the 1998 elections while remaining in the judiciaryspayroll and his vain attempt to mislead the Court by his claim of forgery, are patent acts of dishonesty rendering him

unfit to remain in the judiciary.

In light of the gravity of Judge Limbonas infractions, we find OCAs recommended penalty of dismissal to be

appropriate. Under the Rules of Court, dishonesty and gross misconduct are punishable by dismissal.[20]We also

approve the OCA recommendation that Judge Limbona be made to refund the salaries/allowances he received

fromMarch 26, 1998 toNovember 30, 1998. With this ruling, we likewise resolve the charge against Judge Limbona

referred to us by the Courts Second Division in itsJune 16, 2003 Resolution in A.M. No. SCC -03-08 that the

respondent judge continued to perform judicial functions and to receive his salaries as judge after he had filed a

certificate of candidacy in the May 1998 elections.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/SCC-98-4.htm

Posted inJudicial and Legal Ethics| TaggedJudge's concealment of his direct participation in elections while remaining

in the judiciarys payroll and his vain attempt to mislead the Court by his claim of forgery are patent acts of dishonest

|Leave a comment

For reneging on her promise to return aforesaid amount, she is guilty of conduct

unbecoming a public officer


We agree with the common finding of the Ombudsman and the CA that, in the aftermath of the aborted transaction,

petitioner still failed to return the amount she accepted. As aptly stated by the Ombudsman, if petitioner was persistent in

returning the amount ofP50,000 until the preliminary investigation of the estafacase on September 18, 2003,[28]there

would have been no need for the parties agreement that petitioner be given until February 28, 2003 to pay said amountincluding interest. Indeed, petitioners belated attempt to return the amount was intended to avoid possible sanctions and

impelled solely by the filing of the estafacase against her.

For reneging on her promise to return aforesaid amount, petitioner is guilty of conduct unbecoming a public officer.

InJoson v. Macapagal, we have also ruled that the respondents therein were guilty of conduct unbecoming of

government employees when they reneged on their promise to have pertinent documents notarized and submitted to the

Government Service Insurance System after the complainants rights over the subject property were transferred to the

sister of one of the respondents.[29] Recently, inAssistant Special Prosecutor III Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez v.

Justices Gregory S. Ong, et al., we said that unbecoming conduct means improper performance and applies to a broader

range of transgressions of rules not only of social behavior but of ethical practice or logical procedure or prescribed

method.[30]This Court has too often declared that any act that falls short of the exacting standards for public office shall not be

countenanced.[31]The Constitution categorically declares as follows:

SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people,

serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest

lives.[32]

Petitioner should have complied with her promise to return the amount to respondent after failing to accomplish the task

she had willingly accepted. However, she waited until respondent sued her for estafa, thus reinforcing the latters

suspicion that petitioner misappropriated her money. Although the element of deceit was not proven in the criminal case

respondent filed against the petitioner, it is clear that by her actuations, petitioner violated basic social and ethical norms

in her private dealings. Even if unrelated to her duties as a public officer, petitioners transgression could erode the

publics trust in government employees, moreso because she holds a high position in the service.

As to the penalty, we reprimanded the respondents inJosonand imposed a fine inJamsani-Rodriguez. Under the

circumstances of this case, a fine of P15,000 in lieu of the three months suspension is proper. In imposing said fine, we

have considered as a mitigating circumstance petitioners 37 years of public service and the fact that this is the first charge

against her.[33] Section 53[34]of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that

mitigating circumstances such as length of service shall be considered. And since petitioner has earlier agreed to return

the amount of P50,000 including interest, we find it proper to order her to comply with said agreement. Eventually, the

parties may even find time to rekindle their friendship.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmPosted inAdministrative Law, Civil Service Commision, Civil Service Law, Public Official/Employees | TaggedFor reneging on her promise to return aforesaidamount she is guilty of conduct unbecoming a public officer |Leave a comment

Court personnel shall not be required to perform any work or duty outside the scope of theirassigned job descriptionPosted onFebruary 27, 2012byErineus
http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/11/#_ftn20http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/11/#_ftn20http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/11/#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/SCC-98-4.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/SCC-98-4.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/judicial-and-legal-ethics/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/judicial-and-legal-ethics/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/judicial-and-legal-ethics/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-dis/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-dis/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-dis/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-dis/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn28http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn28http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn28http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn29http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn29http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn29http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn30http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn30http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn30http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn31http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn31http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn31http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn32http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn32http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn32http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn33http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn33http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn33http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn34http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn34http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/administrative-law/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/civil-service-commision/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/civil-service-law/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/public-officialemployees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/court-personnel-shall-not-be-required-to-perform-any-work-or-duty-outside-the-scope-of-their-assigned-job-description/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/court-personnel-shall-not-be-required-to-perform-any-work-or-duty-outside-the-scope-of-their-assigned-job-description/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/court-personnel-shall-not-be-required-to-perform-any-work-or-duty-outside-the-scope-of-their-assigned-job-description/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/court-personnel-shall-not-be-required-to-perform-any-work-or-duty-outside-the-scope-of-their-assigned-job-description/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/court-personnel-shall-not-be-required-to-perform-any-work-or-duty-outside-the-scope-of-their-assigned-job-description/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/court-personnel-shall-not-be-required-to-perform-any-work-or-duty-outside-the-scope-of-their-assigned-job-description/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/court-personnel-shall-not-be-required-to-perform-any-work-or-duty-outside-the-scope-of-their-assigned-job-description/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/court-personnel-shall-not-be-required-to-perform-any-work-or-duty-outside-the-scope-of-their-assigned-job-description/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/public-officialemployees/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/civil-service-law/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/civil-service-commision/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/administrative-law/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/178454.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn34http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn33http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn32http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn31http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn30http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn29http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/9/#_ftn28http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/author/erineus/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/for-reneging-on-her-promise-to-return-aforesaid-amount-she-is-guilty-of-conduct-unbecoming-a-public-officer/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-d/#respondhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-dis/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/tag/judges-concealment-of-his-direct-participation-in-elections-while-remaining-in-the-judiciarys-payroll-and-his-vain-attempt-to-mislead-the-court-by-his-claim-of-forgery-are-patent-acts-of-dis/http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/category/judicial-and-legal-ethics/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/SCC-98-4.htmhttp://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/page/11/#_ftn20


9/17

Section 7, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel10expressly states that court personnel shall not berequired to perform any work outside the scope of their job description, thus:Sec. 7. Court personnel shall not be requiredto perform any work or duty outside the scope of their assigned jobdescription. (Emphasis supplied)InRe: Report of Senior Chief Staff Officer Antonina A. Soria on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Accounts of Clerkof Court Elena E. Jabao, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Jordan-Buenavista-Nueva Ecija, Guimaras,11the Clerk of Courtof the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Jordan-Buenavista-Nueva Valencia in Guimaras was designated to act asCourt Stenographer in addition to her duties as Clerk of Court to fill in for the newly appointed Court Stenographer who

was not yet well-versed in stenography. The designation passed the Courts scrutiny as the duties of a Court Stenographerare subsumed under the general responsibilities of a Clerk of Court since Clerks of Court exercise control and supervision

over Court Stenographers.In the instant case, both Legal Researcher and Court Interpreter are subject to the control and supervision of the Clerk ofCourt.12Since Legal Researchers do not exercise control and supervision over Court Interpreters,13the duties of a CourtInterpreter cannot be deemed subsumed under the general functions of a Legal Researcher.

While the executive judge may not require court personnel to perform work outside the scope of their job description,except duties that are identical with or are subsumed under their present functions, the executive judge may reassign courtpersonnel of multiple-branch courts to another branch within the same area of administrative supervision when there is a

vacancy or when the interest of the service requires, after consultation with the presiding judges of the branchesconcerned. Section 6, Chapter VII of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SCRe: Guidelines on the Selection and Designation of Executive

Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties14so provides:Sec. 6.Reassignment of lower court personnel. (a) Executive Judges of the RTCs shall continue to have authority toeffect the following temporary assignments within his/her area of administrative supervision:Personnel of one branch to another branch of a multiple-branch court;

x x x xReassignments shall be made only in case of vacancy in a position in a branch, or when the interest of theservice so requires.In either case, the assignment shall

legal ethics

Documents

immoral act

immoral conduct

criminal act

anunprincipled act

accusation of mary jane

sexual activity

court employee

nosmall way mary jane