Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATTY. GIL A. VALERA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 208976 2014-10-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES LEONEN, J.
Misconduct has been defined as 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 disregard of established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence."[65]
	AM No. 2011-07-SC 2011-10-04	SUPREME COURT v. EDDIE V. DELGADO PER CURIAM
Second. The acts of the respondents fall squarely under the offense Grave Misconduct. In Valera v. Ombudsman,[79] We defined the offense as follows: 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 disregard of established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence.[80] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 191224 2011-10-04	MONICO K. IMPERIAL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM BRION, J.
Flagrant disregard of rules is a ground that jurisprudence has already touched upon. It has been demonstrated, among others, in the instances when there had been open defiance of a customary rule;[23] in the repeated voluntary disregard of established rules in the procurement of supplies;[24] in the practice of illegally collecting fees more than what is prescribed for delayed registration of marriages;[25] when several violations or disregard of regulations governing the collection of government funds were committed;[26] and when the employee arrogated unto herself responsibilities that were clearly beyond her given duties.[27] The common denominator in these cases was the employee's propensity to ignore the rules as clearly manifested by his or her actions.
	GR No. 187120 2010-02-15	PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS v. NLRC BRION, J.
Enough basis exists, as detailed above, to support the PJI's position that Rivera was responsible for acts and omissions that made him unworthy of the trust and confidence PJI reposed on him. To place this conclusion in Rivera's own terms, contrary to what he claimed, his dismissal was not on the basis of "mere speculation and conjecture," but on the basis of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. In legal terms, this is the quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings.[44] The fact that he had been with the company for 25 years cannot erase the conclusion that he had become a liability to the company whose interests he miserably failed to protect.