This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-05-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The respondent in this case faces the charge of Grave Misconduct, an offense that carries a severe penalty, which is dismissal from service,[14] with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.[15] It is, therefore, imperative that the guilt of the respondent be proven by substantial evidence. | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The penalty for grave misconduct is dismissal from the service,[13] with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re- employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.[14] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The penalty for grave misconduct is dismissal from the service,[28] with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.[29] In Remolona v. Civil Service Commission,[30] the Court En Banc ruled that, to warrant dismissal, grave misconduct or dishonesty need not be committed in the course of performance of duty by the person charged. The Court explained the rationale for this rule, as follows:The rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in office. The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service. Public confidence in our courts is vital to the effective functioning of the judiciary. Court personnel who commit misconduct or dishonesty diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary's ability to dispense justice. | |||||