This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-01-28 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Simple Neglect of Duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference.[21] On the other hand, Grave Abuse of Authority has been defined as a misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inflicts upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury; it is an act of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority.[22] | |||||
|
2014-10-22 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Oppression is also known as grave abuse of authority, which is a misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inflict upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment or other injury. It is an act of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority.[23] To be held administratively liable for Oppression or Grave Abuse of Authority, there must be substantial evidence presented proving the complainant's allegations.[24] Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[25] In this case, the CA correctly overturned the Ombudsman's findings and conclusions, and explained the reasons for exculpating Caberoy, as follows: Evidently, from the foregoing disquisitions, respondent Ombudsman contradicted itself when it found and held that petitioner was guilty of "oppression" for not paying the private respondent her June 2002 salary, because as a matter of fact she has been paid albeit delayed. Such payment is clearly and indubitably established from the table where it was shown that private respondent received on July 17 and 25, 2002, her June 2002 salary in the amounts of P4,613.80 and P4,612.00, respectively. | |||||
|
2014-10-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of authority is defined as a misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inflicts upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment or other injury; it is an act of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority.[18] | |||||
|
2013-04-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As correctly pointed out by the OCA, however, respondent cannot be held liable for grave abuse of authority. Grave abuse of authority has been defined as a misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inflicts upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment or other injury; it is an act of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority.[14] In the present case, the acts complained of against the respondent are not connected to the performance of his duty as a sheriff. | |||||
|
2012-04-23 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Section 4 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees[19] lays down the norms of conduct which every public official and employee shall observe in the discharge and execution of their official duties, specifically providing that they shall at all times respect the rights of others, and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, and public interest. Thus, any conduct contrary to these standards would qualify as conduct unbecoming of a government employee.[20] | |||||