Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERTO M. VILLANUEVA v. QUISUMBING

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 165223 2016-01-11	WINSTON F. GARCIA v. MARIO I. MOLINA BERSAMIN, J.
To be sure, the respondent's act could not be classified as pertaining to or having a direct connection to the performance of his official duties as a litigation lawyer of the GSIS. The connection was essential to a finding of misconduct, for without the connection the conduct would not be sanctioned as an administrative offense. In Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, [21] for instance, the Court reversed the conclusion of the CA that the petitioner's offense related to his official functions by virtue of the offense having been made possible precisely by his official functions; that his position had enabled the petitioner to have free rein inside the building even after office hours; and that he had used his office to commit the misconduct for which he was being charged, with the Court pointing out that the alleged offense was in no way connected with the performance of his functions and duties as a public officer.
	GR No. 176409 2008-02-27	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO S. MIEDES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Grave Misconduct, as distinguished from Simple Misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules, must be manifest[24] and established by substantial evidence. Grave Misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of Simple Misconduct.[25] Thus, a person charged with Grave Misconduct may be held liable for Simple Misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.[26]
	GR No. 165121 2008-02-14	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. PETER E. NIERRAS QUISUMBING, J.
Misconduct refers to intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. 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. Grave misconduct is distinguished from simple misconduct in that the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest in grave misconduct.[11]