This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-10-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Leal's failure to restitute the cash shortage amounting to P865,495.68 and "to adequately explain and present evidence thereon constitute gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even malversation of public funds."[22] In that same vein, Leal's acts of: a) issuance of temporary receipts; b) in making it appear that certain official receipts are cancelled but with court orders that proved otherwise; and c) withholding documents and retaining the same in her possession while the audit team was conducting its examination, constitute dishonesty and grave misconduct. "Dishonesty refers to a person's 'disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray'"[23]; while "in grave misconduct as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest."[24] On the other hand, "failure to deposit on time her cash collections and her shortages in the remittances of collections amount to gross neglect of duty and dishonesty."[25] | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Albeit different in degree, both the CSC and the CA agree that Mayordomo is guilty of misconduct in office. A long line of cases has defined misconduct as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer."[36] Jurisprudence has likewise firmly established that the "misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence."[37] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Though procedural rules in administrative proceedings are less stringent and often applied more liberally, administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process in investigations and hearings. The right to substantive and procedural due process is applicable to administrative proceedings.[16] | |||||
|
2004-10-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner prays that we sustain its ruling penalizing respondent for grave misconduct and not merely for disgraceful or immoral conduct which is punishable by suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense.[35] Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official.[36] To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[37] In grave misconduct as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.[38] Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[39] This is apparently present in respondent's case as it concerns not only a stolen kiss but also a demand for a "date," an unlawful consideration for the issuance of a permit to operate a pre-school. Respondent's act clearly constitutes grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal.[40] | |||||