ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-2009 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 7399 - Antero J. Pobre v. Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago

  • A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC - Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, former Clerk of Court, Branch 81, Romblon, Romblon, on the prohibition from engaging in the private practice of law

  • A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC - Re: Request of National Committee on Legal Aid to exempt legal aid clients from paying filing, docket and other fees.

  • A.M. No. 09-6-9-SC - Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re exemption from legal and filing fees of the Good Shperd Foundation, Inc.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2282 - Lolita S. Regir v. Joel Regir

  • A.M. No. P-07-2390 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Lyndon L. Isip, Sheriff IV, RTC, OCC, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

  • A.M. No. P-08-2436 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2394-P - Teopicio Tan v. Salvacion D. Sermonia, Clerk IV, MTCC, Iloilo City

  • A.M. No. P-08-2501 - Wilson B. Tan v. Jesus F. Hernando

  • A.M. No. P-08-2553 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 98-455-P - Leo Mendoza v. Prospero V. Tablizo

  • A.M. No. P-08-2571 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2651-P - Simeon Guari o, et al. v. Cesar F. Ragsac, et al.

  • A.M. No. P-09-2610 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3072-P - Hector P. Teodosio v. Rolando R. Somosa, et al.

  • A.M. No. P-09-2665 - Judge Alma Crispina B. Collado-Lacorte v. Eduardo Rabena

  • A.M. No. RTJ-07-2031 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2484-RTJ - Adelpha E. Malabed v. Judge Enrique C. Asis, RTC, Br. 16, Naval Biliran

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2124 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2631-RTJ and A.M. NO. RTJ-08-2125 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2632-RTJ - Judge Rizalina T. Capco-Umali, RTC, Br. 212, Mandaluyong City v. Judge Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante, RTC, Br. 211, Mandaluyong City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 - Olga M. Samson v. Judge Virgilio G. Caballero

  • G.R. No. 130223 - Rural Bank of Sta. Barbara (Pangasinan), Inc. v. The Manila mission of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 130371 & G.R. No. 130855 - Repbulic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand R. Marcos II and Imelda R. Marcos

  • G.R. No. 149241 - Dart Philippines, Inc. v. Spouses Francisco and Erlinda Calogcog

  • G.R. No. 149988 - Ramie Velenzuela v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 150887 - Francisco Madrid and Edgardo Bernardo v. Spouses Bonifacio Mapoy and Felicidad Martinez

  • G.R. No. 151932 - Henry Ching Tiu, et al. v. Philippine Bank of Communications

  • G.R. No. 152579 - Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Mildred R. Santos, etc. et al.

  • G.R. No. 153690, G.R. No. 157381 and G.R. No. 170889 - David Lu v. Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., et al.

  • G.R. No. 154652 - Prudencio M. Reyes, Jr. v. Simplicio C. Belisario and Emmanuel S. Malicdem

  • G.R. No. 155174 - D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Duvaz Corporation

  • G.R. No. 156660 - Ormoc Sugarcane Planters' Association, Inc. (OSPA), Occidental Leyte Farmer's Multi-Purpose Cooperative Inc., et al. v. The Court of Appeals (Special Former Sixth Division), et al.

  • G.R. No. 157374 - Heirs of Cayetano Pangan and Consuelo Pangan v. Spouses Rogelio Perreras and Priscilla G. Perreras

  • G.R. No. 160346 - Purita A. Pahud, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 160379 - Republic of the Philippines through the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Court of Appeals and Rosario Rodriguez Reyes

  • G.R. No. 160610 - Judelio Cobarrubias v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 160743 - Cornelia Baladad (Represented by Heinrich M. Angeles and Rex Aaron A. Baladad) v. Sergio A. Rublico and Spouses Laureano E. Yupano

  • G.R. No. 161042 - Republic of the Philippines v. Agripina Dela Raga

  • G.R. No. 161419 - Eugenio Encinares v. Dominga Achero

  • G.R. No. 162355 - Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation v. Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162518 - Rodrigo Sumiran v. Spouses Generoso Damaso and Eva Damaso

  • G.R. No. 163505 - Gualberto Aguanza v. Asian Terminal, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 163788 - Ester B. Maralit v. Philippine National Bank

  • G.R. No. 164324 - Tanduay Distillers, Inc. v. Ginebra San Miguel, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 164789 - Christian Assembly, Inc. v. Sps. Avelino C. Ignacio and Priscilla R. Ignacio

  • G.R. NOS. 164813 & G.R. No. 174590 - Lowe, Inc., et al. v. Court of Appeals and Irma Mutuc

  • G.R. No. 165116 - Maria Soledad Tomimbang v. Atty. Jose Tomimbang

  • G.R. No. 165450 and G.R. No. 165452 - Francis F. Yenko, et al., (etc.) v. Raul Nestor C. Gungon

  • G.R. No. 165697 & G.R. No. 166481 - Antonio Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

  • G.R. No. 166470 & G.R. No. 169217 - Cecilio C. Hernandez, Ma, Victoria C. Hernandez-Sagun, Teresa C. Hernandez-Villa Abrille and Natividad Cruz-Hernandez v. Jovita San Juan-Santos

  • G.R. No. 166738 - Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua v. Eduardo Rumbaua

  • G.R. No. 166879 - A. Soriano Aviation v. Employees Association of A. Soriano Aviation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167230 - Spouses Dante and Ma. Teresa Galura v. Math-Agro Corporation

  • G.R. No. 167304 - People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and Victoria Amante

  • G.R. No. 168910 - Republic Cement Corporation v. Peter Guinmapang

  • G.R. No. 168982 - People of the Philippines v. Dir. Cesar P. Nazareno, Dir. Evelino Nartatez, Dir. Nicasio Ma. S. Custodio and The Sandiganbayan

  • G.R. No. 169870 - People of the Philippines v. Elegio An

  • G.R. No. 170137 - People of the Philippines v. Randy Magbanua alias "Boyung" and Wilson Magbanua.

  • G.R. No. 170672 - Judge Felimon Abelita, III v. P/Supt. German Doria and SPO3 Cesar Ramirez

  • G.R. No. 170674 - Foundation Specialist, Inc. v. Betonval Ready Concrete, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 171035 - William Ong Genato v. Benjamin Bayhon, et al.

  • G.R. No. 171169 - GC Dalton Industries, Inc. v. Equitable PCI Bank

  • G.R. No. 171313 - People of the Philippines v. Edgar Trayco y Masola

  • G.R. No. 171674 - Department of Agrarian Reform (etc.) v. Carmen S. Tongson

  • G.R. No. 171732 - People of the Philippines v. Edgar Denoman y Acurda

  • G.R. No. 171951 - Amado Alvarado Garcia v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 172537 - Jethro Intelligence & Security Corporation and Yakult, Inc. v. The Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al.

  • G.R. No. 172680 - The Heirs of the Late Fernando S. Falcasantos, etc., et al. v. Spouses Fidel Yeo Tan and Sy Soc Tiu, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174209 - Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Rizalina Raut, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175345 - Baltazar L. Payno v. Orizon Trading Corp./ Orata Trading and Flordeliza Legaspi

  • G.R. No. 175605 - People of the Philippines v. Arnold Garchitorena Y Camba a.k.a. Junior, Joey Pamplona a.k.a. Nato, and Jessie Garcia y Adorino

  • G.R. No. 176487 - Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Far East Enterprises, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 176511 - Spouses Obdulia H. Espejo and Hildelberto T. Espejo v. Geraldine Coloma Ito

  • G.R. No. 176906 - Andrew B. Nudo v. Hon. Amado S. Caguioa, et al.

  • G.R. No. 176917 & G.R. No. 176919 - Continental Cement Corp., v. Filipinas (PREFAB) Systems, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 177134 - People of the Philippines v. Rachel Angeles y Naval Alias Russel Angeles y Cabal

  • G.R. No. 177508 - Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Partylist represented by Salvador B. Britanico v. Commission on Elections

  • G.R. No. 177741 - People of the Philippines v. Willie Rivera

  • G.R. NOS. 178188, 181141, 181141 and 183527 - Olympic Mines and Development Corp., v. Platinum Group Metals Corporation

  • G.R. No. 178797 - Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 178984 - Erlinda Mapagay v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 179280 - People of the Philippines v. Pedro Calangi alias Haplas

  • G.R. No. 179293 - Eden Llamas v. Ocean Gateway Maritime and Management, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 179905 - Republic of the Philippines v. Neptuna G. Javier

  • G.R. No. 179941 - People of the Philippines v. Lito Macabare y Lopez

  • G.R. No. 180357 - Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation v. Heirs of Vicente Coronado, et al.

  • G.R. No. 180380 - Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 180594 - People of the Philippines v. Ismael Mokammad, et al.

  • G.R. No. 180824 - Urban Consolidated Constructors Philippines, Inc. v. The Insular Life Assurance Co., Inc.

  • G.R. No. 180921 - People of the Philippines v. Bernardo Rimando, Jr. y Basilio alias "JOJO"

  • G.R. No. 180988 - Julie's Franchise Corporation, et al. v. Hon. Chandler O. Ruiz, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Dipolog City, et al.

  • G.R. No. 181516 - Cesario L. Del Rosario v. Philippine Journalists, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 181845 - The City of Manila, Liberty M. Toledo in her capacity as the Treasurer of Manila, et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 181972 - Philippine Hoteliers, Inc./Dusit Hotel Nikko-Manila v. National Union of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant, and Allied Industries (NUWHARAIN-APL-IUF) Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter

  • G.R. No. 182267 - Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad v. Civil Service Commission

  • G.R. No. 182311 - Fidel O. Chua and Filiden Realty and Development Corporation v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, et al.

  • G.R. No. 182380 - Robert P. Guzman v. Commission on Elections, Mayor Randolph S. Ting and Salvacion Garcia

  • G.R. No. 182528 - People of the Philippines v. Marian Coroche y Caber

  • G.R. No. 182792 - People of the Philippines v. Pepito Neverio

  • G.R. No. 183059 - Ely Quilatan & Rosvida Quilatan-Elias v. Heirs of Lorenzo Quilatan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 183196 - Chona Estacio and Leopoldo Manliclic v. Pampanga I, Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Loliano E. Allas

  • G.R. No. 183329 - Rufino C. Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation Mr. Edilberto Ellena and Great Lake Navigation Co., Ltd.

  • G.R. No. 183366 - Ricardo C. Duco v. The Hon. Commission on Elections, First Division, and Narciso B. Avelino

  • G.R. No. 183526 - Violeta R. Lalican v. The Insular Life Assurance Company Limited, as represented by the President Vicente R. Avilon

  • G.R. No. 184005 - Top Art Shirt Manufacturing Inc., Maximo Arejola and Tan Shu Keng v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Inc., and the Court of the Appeals

  • G.R. No. 184337 - Heirs of Federico C. Delgado and Annalisa Pesico v. Luisito Q. Gonzales and Antonio T. Buenaflor

  • G.R. No. 184905 - Lambert S. Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corporation

  • G.R. No. 185004 - People of the Philippines v. Armando Ferasol

  • G.R. No. 185711 - People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Sanz Laboa

  • G.R. No. 185712 - People of the Philippines v. Lilio U. Achas

  • G.R .No. 185723 - People of the Philippines v. Edwin Mejia

  • G.R .No. 185841 - People of the Philippines v. Ismael Diaz @ Maeng and Rodolfo Diaz @ Nanding

  • G.R. No. 186080 - Julius Amanquiton v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 186129 - People of the Philippines v. Jesus Paragas Cruz

  • G.R. No. 186224 - Constancio D. Pacanan, Jr. v. Commission on Elections and Francisco M. Langi, Sr.

  • G.R. No. 186379 - People of the Philippines v. Bienvenido Lazaro @ Bening

  • G.R. No. 186381 - People of the Philippines v. Clemencia Arguelles y Talacay

  • G.R. No. 186420 - People of the Philippines v. Samuel Anod

  • G.R. No. 186496 - People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin Y Par

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. P-07-2390 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Lyndon L. Isip, Sheriff IV, RTC, OCC, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

      A.M. No. P-07-2390 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Lyndon L. Isip, Sheriff IV, RTC, OCC, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [A.M. NO. P-07-2390 : August 19, 2009]

    OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. LYNDON L. ISIP, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, Respondent.

    R E S O L U T I O N

    CARPIO, J.:

    The Facts

    Three anonymous letters purportedly coming from disgruntled employees of the Regional Trial Court, City of San Fernando, Pampanga (RTC-San Fernando), alleged that Lyndon L. Isip (respondent) of the same court had been falsifying his daily time record (DTR) by timing in at the Regional Trial Court of Guagua (RTC-Guagua) where his wife works to avoid being late. Respondent allegedly brings the DTR home after office hours and punches it in the bundy clock located at the RTC-Guagua the following morning before going to his official work station at the RTC-San Fernando.

    The matter was referred to Executive Judge Adelaida Ala-Medina (Investigating Judge) of the RTC-San Fernando for investigation, report and recommendation.

    Report of the Investigating Judge

    During the formal investigation, security guard Amir Karon (Karon) testified that he saw respondent arrive on 22 November 2004 and proceeded directly to the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), San Fernando, Pampanga without punching in his DTR in the bundy clock. Karon purportedly confronted respondent and the latter readily admitted punching in at the RTC-Guagua. Because of what transpired, Karon reported the matter to head guard Raoul Pelinio (Pelinio).

    Pelinio testified that he would enter in the OCC logbook the names of the employees whose DTRs were missing at the DTR rack and one of those was respondent's DTR. Pelinio noticed that respondent's DTR did not correspond to his actual time of arrival in the office.

    Florenda Ordoñez, Administrative Officer of the OCC, San Fernando, Pampanga, explained that some employees might not have logged-in the time they actually arrived as there were three bundy clocks which were set at intervals reflecting different times while others just simply forgot or did not record their time-in in the OCC logbook. The employees might have gone to some other place before logging in at the OCC which explains the non-consecutive entries in the logbook.

    During the investigation, respondent readily admitted his misdeed. The Investigating Judge examined the logbook of the OCC, RTC-San Fernando, to check the hours respondent reported for work during the period he was timing in at RTC-Guagua. It appeared that respondent began timing in at RTC-Guagua on 11 October 2004. Respondent would write in the OCC logbook the time as reflected in his DTR although his actual time of arrival at the RTC-San Fernando was actually later than the time reflected in the DTR. The Investigating Judge was of the opinion that since employees sign in the logbook as soon as they arrive in the office, it did not make sense that respondent's time of arrival as recorded in the logbook was earlier than the person who came before him. The Investigating Judge concluded that these "discrepancies" in the hours of arrival recorded in the logbook and the hours of arrival as reflected in the DTR support the allegation that respondent was timing in at another place before going to the RTC-San Fernando, his official work station.

    In his Investigation Report and Recommendation dated 30 January 2007, the Investigating Judge pointed out that while dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service even if on a first offense, an examination of the entries in the logbook would reveal that respondent was still coming in before 8:00 in the morning. Respondent had been in the service for many years and this case is his first offense. These and respondent's admission are circumstances which would seem to mitigate his liability. The Investigating Judge was convinced that respondent was sincerely remorseful and deserved a second chance. The Investigating Judge recommended the imposition of the penalty of suspension for one year without pay.

    The OCA Report and Recommendation

    The OCA opines that respondent's conduct fell short of the exacting standards of public office. Respondent admitted punching in his DTR at RTC-Guagua, which is not his official work station. The OCA adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Judge and recommended that respondent be suspended for one year without pay for falsification of the DTR amounting to dishonesty. The OCA, however, refrained from imposing the penalty of dismissal from the service considering that this is respondent's first offense. The OCA further considered respondent's admission of punching in at another place other than his official work station, his more than 12 years of service in the judiciary, and his promise to reform as mitigating circumstances.

    The Court's Ruling

    It was established that the OCC logbook indicated the time as reflected in respondent's DTR but his actual time of arrival at the RTC-San Fernando was actually later than the time as reflected in the DTR. The discrepancy was explained by the fact that, as respondent himself admitted, he punched in at the RTC-Guagua which is not his official work station.

    OCA Circular No. 7-2003 is clear and states that court personnel should indicate in their bundy cards the "truthful and accurate times" of their arrival at, and departure from, the office. That office is the official work station of the court personnel. In the present case, respondent's official work station is RTC-San Fernando and not RTC-Guagua. Respondent's punching in at RTC-Guagua was a clear violation of OCA Circular No. 7-2003. As we have ruled in Garcia v. Bada1 and Servino v. Adolfo,2 court employees must follow the clear mandate of OCA Circular No. 7-2003.

    Section 4, Rule XVII (on Government Office Hours) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws also provides that falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records will render the guilty officer or employee administratively liable.3 Falsification of time records constitutes dishonesty, which is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service.4

    However, there have been several administrative cases involving dishonesty in which the Court meted out a penalty lower than dismissal from the service and in these cases, mitigating circumstances merited the leniency of the Court. Factors such as length of service, acknowledgment of respondent's infractions and feeling of remorse, and family circumstances, among other things, have had varying significance in the Court's determination of the imposable penalty.5

    In Office of the Court Administrator v. Sirios,6 suspension of three months without pay was imposed for falsification of the DTR to cover up for absenteeism or tardiness.

    In Office of the Court Administrator v. Saa,7 respondent there was fined P5,000 for falsifying his DTR to make it appear that he had reported for work on those days when he attended hearings of his case.

    In Reyes-Domingo v. Morales,8 where the branch clerk of court was found guilty of dishonesty in not reflecting the correct time in his DTR, a fine of P5,000 was imposed.

    In Servino v. Adolfo,9 respondent there readily acknowledged that some entries in her time card were falsified. The Court noted that this was her first administrative case in her three years in government service. A fine of P2,000 was imposed.

    In the present case, circumstances exist that mitigate respondent's liability. The Investigating Judge pointed out that respondent appeared to still be coming in before 8:00 in the morning, judging from the entries in the OCC logbook, which would tend to show that had respondent properly timed in at the RTC-San Fernando, he would still not have been late for work.10 In punching in not at his official work station, respondent readily admitted his wrongdoing and vowed to mend his ways. Respondent never repeated such irregularity.11 Respondent has been in the service in the judiciary for more than 12 years and this is his first offense. Respondent certainly deserves a second chance. Consequently, a fine of P10,000 will suffice.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

    It must be stressed that all court employees must exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, as service in the Judiciary is not only a duty but also a mission.12 The Court has repeatedly emphasized that everyone in the judiciary, from the presiding judge to the clerk, must always be beyond reproach, free of any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. Public service requires utmost integrity and discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, for no less than the Constitution mandates the principle that "a public office is a public trust and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency." As the administration of justice is a sacred task, the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity. Their conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be above suspicion. Thus, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty.13

    WHEREFORE, we find respondent Lyndon L. Isip, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, GUILTY of DISHONESTY and we FINE him P10,000. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

    SO ORDERED.


    Endnotes:


    1 A.M. No. P-07-2311, 23 August 2007, 530 SCRA 779, 783.

    2 A.M. No. P-06-2204, 30 November 2006, 509 SCRA 42, 52.

    3 See also Duque v. Aspiras, A.M. No. P-05-2036, 15 July 2005, 463 SCRA 447, 454.

    4 Servino v. Adolfo, supra note 2 at 53; Anonymous v. Grande, A.M. No. P-06-2114, 5 December 2006, 509 SCRA 495, 501.

    5 In Re: Irregularities in the Use of Logbook and Daily Time Records by Clerk of Court Raquel D.J. Razon, Cash Clerk Joel M. Magtuloy and Utility Worker Tiburcio O. Morales, MTC-OCC, Guagua, Pampanga, A.M. No. P-06-2243, 26 September 2006, 503 SCRA 52, 62-64; In Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the First Semester of 2005, A.M. No. 2005-25-SC, 6 July 2006, 494 SCRA 422.

    6 457 Phil. 42, 49 (2003).

    7 457 Phil. 25, 28, 30 (2003).

    8 396 Phil. 150, 165-166 (2000).

    9 Supra note 2 at 57.

    10 Report and Recommendation dated 2 August 2005, p. 8. Rollo; OCA Memorandum dated 4 October 2007, p. 3.

    11 OCA Memorandum dated 4 October 2007, p. 7; Investigation Report and Recommendation dated 30 January 2007, p. 4.

    12 Re: Findings of Irregularity on the Bundy Cards of Personnel of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26 and Municipal Trial Court, Medina, Misamis Oriental, A.M. No. 04-11-671-RTC, 14 October 2005, 473 SCRA 1, 12-13.

    13 Re: Report on the Irregularity in the Use of Bundy Clock by Alberto Salamat, Sheriff IV, RTC-Br. 80, Malolos City, A.M. No. P-08-2494, 27 November 2008, 572 SCRA 19.

    A.M. No. P-07-2390 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Lyndon L. Isip, Sheriff IV, RTC, OCC, City of San Fernando, Pampanga


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED