Reigning champs the DLSU Lady Spikers continued their romp as they demolished the NU Lady Bulldogs 25-8, 25-22, 25-19read more
The highest fan and issue threads will be posted weekly. Check out the gorgeous female celebrities that came out on top this week!read more
Fans just got a taste of what to expect this season. Here are the numbers that shaped the first week of UAAP volleyball action.read more
Japeth Aguilar's trey and block saved the day as Barangay Ginebra escaped the Talk N Text Tropang Texters 97-95.read more
newbiebaby, matanong lang kita, may integrity ka ba ?
A.M. No. P-97-1247, 1997), the Supreme Court did not make a distinction as to what ground is "the main reason" and what is merely "incidental." I wonder where you got that from.
to quote: Aside from dishonesty, however, respondent is also guilty of failure to perform her legal obligation to disclose her business interests. Respondent herself admitted that she "had a stall in the market." The Office of the Court Administrator also found that she had been receiving rental payments from one Rodolfo Luay for the use of the market stall. That respondent had a stall in the market was undoubtedly a business interest which should have been reported in her Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Her failure to do so exposes her to administrative sanction.
the "dishonesty" referred to in the said case pertains to moonlightning. The senator-judges addressed failure to disclose saln as an dishonest act citing as basis thereon the said case. Her saln was questioned because her other employment was discovered.
Sorry TS for being out of topic. Im not a Corona nor a GMA supporter. I likewise hate corruption. But what i hate about is how Pnoy used all his power to bully the public officials who dont conform to his (insane)orders. The fight was not fair, there was a clear violation of rights.
Again, I didn't find in the case the phrases "main reason" and "incidental" you were talking about.
"Aside from" only implies that there was more than one ground to dismiss the respondent. In fact, there were two grounds cited in the case. It did not mean, however, that one ground is more serious than other, or that one merely aggravated the other, or that both grounds must be present to dismiss the respondent.
Which brings me home to my point: the presence of any of the two grounds, once proved, is sufficient for the dismissal of the respondent. My basis?
"Under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292 known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" and other pertinent Civil Service Laws, the penalty for dishonesty is dismissal, even for the first offense."
"Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 provides that it is the "obligation" of an employee to submit a sworn statement, as the "public has a right to know" the employee's assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests. Section 11 of the same law prescribes the criminal and administrative penalty for violation of any provision thereof. Paragraph (b) of Section 11 provides that "(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him." (Rabe v. Flores, 1997).
This means that respondent could have been dismissed even if only one of the two grounds is present. Thus, it was not improper to cite the case as basis for finding guilt.
For me, what aggravated her case was not her failure to disclose everything in her saln but the moonlighting itself.
In my opinion, this case should have not been cited by the senators because it only created an impression to the public that flores was a pathetic employee who just failed to complete her saln, period. That is not the whole story. The dishonesty mentioned in the case reffered to moonlighting and not about her saln.
It'd be actually an interesting proposition to have him as a professor. Students will be quizzed about his personality and lessons and classes will be interesting.
Pero mukhang nakakaantok magturo si Ex-CJ eh.
Again, it is not, in any way, incorrect to cite the case itself as the same affirms the fact that somebody has been dismissed before for violation of RA 6713.
I hope next time, we do our research before we point fingers.
I asked you what if flore's fault was only her failure to disclose her assets, would the court dismiss her? you answered it that the court should. Your honor, let me draw your attention to the case of PAGC vs. salvador pleyte (http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dec...55911872763570) for your easy reference your honor.
the aforesaid case also mentioned about another case categorizing failure to disclose assets as simple negligence only and the penalty is forfeiture of the equivalent of six months of his salary from his retirement benefits.
comparing the case of flores and the case of pleyto, which do you think is closer to the facts with regard to corona's impeachment case? thanks
I just hope na kasuhan na rin ng BIR si Corona at ang pamilya niya para tuloy-tuloy na ang tamang hustisya sa Pilipinas
Sorry sa OffT pala. Just sending a point across. Last reply ko na.
What makes you say na wala siyang integrity and honesty?
He was convicted under Article 2 of the impeachment which was non-disclosure of SALN. His defense was his own interpretation of two conflicting laws and how to reconcile them. Senate said mali yung interpretation niya. It happens even in Supreme Court that is why justices still vote. Walang kinalaman yung impeachment article 2 sa integrity niya. In fact siya na mismo ang umamin na hindi niya dinisclose dahil ang basa niya sa batas ay absolute ang bank secrecy law. That is honesty for me, unlike Drilon who voted for conviction with the same charges he is guilty of.
I think given his academic reputation, and given na he was not accused of "any dishonesty" even in the Senate, he is more than qualified to teach at any law school.
[QUOTE=Kirkegaard;63159021]I do not disagree but that is, at best, a half-truth. As I have said, both grounds, taken separately or in conjunction with the other, would result in dismissal if proved. Basis? Statutory law. You insist on distinguishing between the "main reason" and the "incidental" reason (your words). Absolutely wrong. Did the court distinguish between the two? An emphatic "No." Statute says either of the two may be ground for dismissal. The case even cited the provisions of law as basis therefor. You think the court would take pains and mention in the decision that "Any violation... shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal..." if all along they were thinking that the second ground was insufficient to penalize somebody with dismissal? You don't say. I must be reading another case.
For a second time, regretfully, we me must be reading two different cases. Did that decision cast into oblivion the penalty of dismissal for a violation of RA 6713? It did not. No can do. Courts, ideally, cannot amend legislation. What therefore does that case bring to the table? As you said, that later case (merely) categorized failure to disclose into two: simple and gross negligence. The case implied two things: (1) that simple negligence will be penalized with something less than dismissal, like forfeiture of salary; and, (2) that gross negligence will still be penalized with dismissal (otherwise, why bother distinguishing between simple and gross?). Was the Rabe v. Flores ruling overturned? No, there was no mention. After all, the difference is more illusory than real. Therefore, from the fact that Flores was dismissed, we can gather that her case, as perceived by the justices, could only be one of gross negligence.
Sorry sa OffT pala. Just sending a point across. Last reply ko na. [/QUOT
who interprets the law? congress? president? or the Supreme Court? di ba supreme court. so When the Court declared that failure to disclose is mere simple negligence (case to case basis) then that's it, no need to argue. The Court did not amend the law but interpreted the law. magkaiba ang amending and interpreting. It is basic in stat con that the latest jurisprudence prevails. Bakit kaya pinilit ng ibang senator na flores case ang applicable? hindi ba nila nabasa ang latest case? Hmmmm...pag gusto talaga may paraan...
since you rested your case, it is now deemed submitted for decision hehehe...nice talking with you...