This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-07-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.[65] Mere bad faith or partiality and negligence per se are not enough for one to be held liable under the law since the act of bad faith or partiality must in the first place be evident or manifest, respectively, while the negligent deed should both be gross and inexcusable.[66] Negligence consists in the disregard of some duty imposed by law; a failure to comply with some duty of care owed by one to another.[67] Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties, and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably impose.[68] | |||||
|
2010-08-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or to cause damage.[31] It contemplates a breach of sworn duty through some perverse motive or ill will.[32] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Manifest partiality has been characterized as "a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other."[20] Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.[21] Gross inexcusable negligence has been defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected.[22] It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property.[23] In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.[24] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In our jurisdiction, acceptance is necessary for resignation of a public officer to be operative and effective. Without acceptance, resignation is nothing and the officer remains in office.[30] Resignation to be effective must be accepted by competent authority, either in terms or by something tantamount to an acceptance, such as the appointment of the successor.[31] A public officer cannot abandon his office before his resignation is accepted, otherwise the officer is subject to the penal provisions of Article 238[32] of the Revised Penal Code.[33] The final or conclusive act of a resignation's acceptance is the notice of acceptance.[34] The incumbent official would not be in a position to determine the acceptance of his resignation unless he had been duly notified therefor.[35] | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Additionally, Section 3(e) poses the standard of manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence before liability can be had under the provision. Manifest partiality is characterized by a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other.[36] Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.[37] Gross inexcusable negligence is defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[38] Mere bad faith or partiality and negligence per se are not enough for one to be held liable under the law since the act of bad faith or partiality must in the first place be evident or manifest, respectively, while the negligent deed should both be gross and inexcusable.[39] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As the Court is not a trier of facts, it reposes immense respect to the factual determination and appreciation made by the Ombudsman. x x x.[24] | |||||