Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEDRO SALAZAR v. EDMUNDO B. BARRIGA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 208341 2015-06-17	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MA. NIMFA P. DE VILLA MENDOZA, J.
It cannot be said that De Villa's performance of her duty constituted wilful intent to violate the law. 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.[37] No evidence was ever presented by the Ombudsman to show corruption on her part. A presumption or conjecture is not sufficient substantial evidence to sustain a finding of administrative liability.
	AM No. P-06-2161 2012-09-25	ATTY. DENNIS A. VELASCO v. MYRA L. BATERBONIA PER CURIAM
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.[12] Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or employee who unlawfully or wrongfully uses her station or character to procure some benefit for herself or for another, contrary to the rights of others.[13] Certainly, Baterbonia's acts constituted very serious administrative offenses of grave misconduct that called for her dismissal from the service many times over. In that regard, her boldness in repeatedly committing the acts erased all possibility of leniency towards her.
	AM No. RT.J-1 0-2257 2012-07-17	CRISELDA C. GACAD v. JUDGE IIILARION P. CLAPIS PER CURIAM
Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior in connection with one's performance of official functions and duties.[12] For grave or gross misconduct to exist, the judicial act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by the intention to violate the law, or a persistent disregard of well-known rules.[13] The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment.[14]
	AM No. RTJ-10-2257 2012-07-17	CRISELDA C. GACAD v. JUDGE HILARION P. CLAPIS PER CURIAM
Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior in connection with one's performance of official functions and duties.[12] For grave or gross misconduct to exist, the judicial act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by the intention to violate the law, or a persistent disregard of well-known rules.[13] The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment.[14]
	AM MTJ-04-1558 2010-04-07	RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT PER CURIAM
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.[72] Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or employee who unlawfully or wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another, contrary to the rights of others.[73]
	AM No. P-09-2676 2009-12-16	JUDGE JUANITA T. GUERRERO v. TERESITA V. ONG BERSAMIN, J.
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.[16] Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or employee who unlawfully or wrongfully uses her station or character to procure some benefit for herself or for another, contrary to the rights of others.[17] It is established herein that Ong knowingly and corruptly tried to influence Judge Guerrero to favor Garcia in the latter's pending civil action.
	AM No. P-06-2169 2008-03-28	ROGELIO V. URBANOZO v. CRISANTO T. FLORA PER CURIAM
Considering the evidence, respondent's acts were nothing short of grave misconduct. Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior.[25] In order for such misconduct to be considered grave, there must be substantial evidence showing that the acts complained of are corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constitute flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules.[26] The actuations of respondent constituted flagrant disregard of the law.
	GR No. 176409 2008-02-27	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO S. MIEDES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The CA correctly found no reason to depart from the findings of the petitioner that respondent and his companions are guilty of Simple Misconduct. The elements particular to Grave Misconduct were not adequately proven in the present case. 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.[27] There is no clear and convincing evidence in the present case to show that the purchase and acquisition of the 19 cellular phone units had been made for personal or selfish ends. Nor is there evidence that respondent and his companions acted in a capricious, whimsical and arbitrary manner with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice to others.