This case has been cited 26 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Misconduct in office, by uniform legal definition, is such misconduct that affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual.[16] To warrant removal from office, it must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office.[17] Moreover, it is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[18] It becomes grave if it "involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence."[19] | |||||
|
2015-10-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Misconduct is defined as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[39] It becomes grave misconduct when it "involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence."[40] A person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.[41] The charge of gross misconduct is a serious charge that warrants the removal or dismissal of a public officer or employee from service together with the accessory penalties, such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.[42] | |||||
|
2014-11-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer,[13] a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.[14] It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. The term, however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent. 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. On the other hand, when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.[15] | |||||
|
2014-07-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Misconduct is defined as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[19] Misconduct becomes grave if it "involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence."[20] | |||||
|
2014-06-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondents in this case failed to subscribe to the highest moral fiber mandated of the judiciary and its personnel. Their actions tainted their office and besmirched its integrity. In effect, both respondents are guilty of gross misconduct. This court defined misconduct as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[155] In Camus v. The Civil Service Board of Appeals,[156] this court held that "[m]isconduct has been defined as 'wrong or improper conduct' and 'gross' has been held to mean 'flagrant; shameful'. . . . This Court once held that the word misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment."[157] | |||||
|
2012-03-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma,[49] the Court defined misconduct as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." We further stated that misconduct becomes grave if it "involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence."[50] Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.[51] Therefore, "[a] person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave."[52] | |||||
|
2012-01-31 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The insistence of Ongjoco is unfounded. The essential purpose of the constitutional provision is to require that a judicial decision be clear on why a party has prevailed under the law as applied to the facts as proved; the provision nowhere demands that a point-by-point consideration and resolution of the issues raised by the parties are necessary.[12] Cogently, the Court has said in Tichangco v. Enriquez,[13] to wit: This constitutional provision deals with the disposition of petitions for review and of motions for reconsideration. In appellate courts, the rule does not require any comprehensive statement of facts or mention of the applicable law, but merely a statement of the "legal basis" for denying due course. | |||||
|
2011-05-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave. Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct. Thus, one can be held liable for simple misconduct if any of the elements to make the misconduct grave is not established by substantial evidence. In such case, there is no violation of a person's constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him.[21] | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| That his conduct proceeded from his bias towards the accused rendered his acts and omissions as gross misconduct. It is settled that the misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of long-standing rules, which must be established by substantial evidence; otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.[17] | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Relacion's failure to immediately return Reas' salary check was improper and constituted misconduct. According to Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, [25] misconduct is a transgression of some established rule of action, an unlawful behavior, or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of long-standing rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.[26] That Relacion did not maliciously or deliberately take Reas' salary check rendered him liable only for simple misconduct. | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Section 4 (c) of EO No. 12, however, states that the PAGC has the power to give due course to anonymous complaints against presidential appointees if there appears on the face of the complaint or based on the supporting documents attached to the anonymous complaint a probable cause to engender a belief that the allegations may be true.[26] The use of the conjunctive word "or" in the said provision is determinative since it empowers the PAGC to exercise discretion in giving due course to anonymous complaints. Because of the said provision, an anonymous complaint may be given due course even if the same is without supporting documents, so long as it appears from the face of the complaint that there is probable cause. The clear implication of the said provision is intent to empower the PAGC in line with the President's objective of eradicating corruption among a particular line of government officials, i.e., those directly appointed by her. Absent the conjunctive word "or," the PAGC's authority to conduct investigations based on anonymous complaints will be very limited. It will decimate the said administrative body into a toothless anti-corruption agency and will inevitably undermine the Chief Executive's disciplinary power. | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.[51] | |||||
|
2010-03-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Length of service as a factor in determining the imposable penalty in administrative cases is a double-edged sword.[16] In fact, respondent's long years of government service should be seen as a factor which aggravated the wrong that he committed. Having been in the government service for so long, he, more than anyone else, should have known that public service is a public trust;[17] that public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline, and, as such, a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity.[18] Sadly, respondent's actions did not reflect the integrity and discipline that were expected of public servants. He failed to live up to the image of the outstanding and exemplary public official that he was. He sullied government service instead. | |||||
|
2010-03-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner harps on Paler's alleged bad faith and misrepresentation in filing his previous applications for leave. However, as correctly found by the CSC and CA, the basis for Paler's dismissal was his continuous absence without leave, not bad faith and misrepresentation. The CSC even noted that Paler never misrepresented or misled petitioner as to where he was spending his vacation leave. He clearly stated in his application for leave dated April 17, 2003 that he was spending it not only in the Philippines but also in the U.S.[30] According to the CA, "to utilize Paler's alleged misrepresentation in his previously approved applications for leave as basis for his separation from work, even in the absence of opportunity for him to controvert the matter, would constitute a violation of the fundamental requirements of fairness and equity and the constitutional guarantee of due process."[31] The Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of both the CSC and CA, given that they concur with each other and should be accorded great weight and respect.[32] | |||||
|
2009-10-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| With regard to the other charges of contempt, conduct unbecoming and misconduct, we find no sufficient basis to hold Genabe accountable for these offenses based on her alleged unruly conduct at the staff meeting held on 29 November 2006. In administrative proceedings, the burden is on the complainant to prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.[6] Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The standard was not met in this case. The Order dated 21 December 2006 and Investigation Report dated 18 January 2007 submitted by Judge Maceda centered mainly on Genabe's neglect of duty in not completing her assigned task on time. The other charges had been touched on in a sporadic manner. While the law does not tolerate misconduct by a civil servant, suspension, replacement or dismissal must not be resorted to unless there is substantial evidence to merit such penalties. In the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, Genabe cannot be held accountable for the other charges against her. | |||||
|
2009-06-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Respondent was charged with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. A person charged with grave misconduct is put on notice that he stands accused of misconduct coupled with any of the elements of corruption or willful intent to violate the law or established rules.[35]Meanwhile, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is classified as a grave offense with a corresponding penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and the penalty of dismissal for the second offense.[36] | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." [9] The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.[10] Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[11] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is noteworthy that the question as to whether they satisfied the minimum five-year requisite is factual in nature. A question of fact arises when there is a need to decide on the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts.[46] Under Rule 45, factual findings are ordinarily not subject to this Court's review.[47] It is already well-settled that:The general rule is that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. A recognized exception to this rule is when the Court of Appeals and the trial court, or in this case the administrative body, make contradictory findings. However, the exception does not apply in every instance that the Court of Appeals and the trial court or administrative body disagree. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals remain conclusive on this Court if such findings are supported by the record or based on substantial evidence.[48] | |||||
|
2008-03-25 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Amplifying the above-cited ruling, this Court, in Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma,[29] held:x x x In [Civil Service Commission v. Lucas], the CSC found Lucas guilty of grave misconduct though the charge against him was for simple misconduct only. The Court held that the CSC's verdict in Lucas violated the basic requirements of due process. The Court ruled that even in an administrative proceeding Lucas had the right to be informed of the charges against him, as well as the right not to be convicted of an offense for which he was not charged. Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to | |||||
|
2008-02-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Otherwise stated, the misconduct is grave if it involves the additional element of corruption.[12] Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists of 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.[13] | |||||
|
2008-01-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In sum, Mr. Legazpi should be held liable for grave misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence of a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.[23] | |||||
|
2007-09-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Normally, we do not entertain such purely factual issues - we avoid weighing conflicting evidence, and substituting our evaluation for that of the lower courts and administrative or quasi-judicial tribunals. We accord great respect, even finality, to the latter's factual findings, especially when these are adopted and confirmed by the CA; instead, we confine ourselves to merely reviewing and revising their errors of law.[26] But when their findings are not supported by evidence,[27] we step in to review their factual evaluation and correct their gross error.[28] | |||||
|
2007-08-07 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the charge against respondent Barcelona, the Court finds that complainant submitted her March 2003 DTR to Barcelona, the latter's denial notwithstanding. Respondent Barcelona's initials on the DTR in question which she admitted to be her own prove the fact of submission. Her failure to transmit the complainant's March 2003 DTR to the Leave Section of the Court does not, however, translate to misconduct, a term denoting an improper conduct, or a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, that implies wrongful intent.[25] In the strict civil service law viewpoint, misconduct and negligence are different concepts, albeit gross negligence by a public officer may constitute misconduct.[26] | |||||
|
2007-02-08 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, [11] we held that misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence. [12] Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. A person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave. Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct. [13] | |||||
|
2007-01-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the Court notes that the Ombudsman and the appellate court found substantial evidence to prove petitioner's administrative liability. The Court affirms this finding following the rule that factual findings of administrative bodies, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal.[20] | |||||