This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-10-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. 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. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest.[16] | |||||
|
2013-01-15 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| "Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or a standard of behavior.[22] To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions of a public officer.[23] In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be established."[24] | |||||
|
2011-10-04 |
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. | |||||
|
2011-05-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Public respondent CSC did not err in not considering length of service as a mitigating circumstance and in imposing the maximum penalty of dismissal on the petitioner. Length of service as a factor in determining the imposable penalty in administrative cases is a double-edged sword.[46] Despite the language of Section 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 93-024, length of service is not always a mitigating circumstance in every case of commission of an administrative offense by a public officer or employee. | |||||