This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-11-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Viewed in these lights, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error of law in affirming the Ombudsman's decision. "Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. As differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct[,] the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest."[21] "[C]orruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the official's unlawful and wrongful use of his station or character [reputation] to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others."[22] | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Albeit different in degree, both the CSC and the CA agree that Mayordomo is guilty of misconduct in office. A long line of cases has defined misconduct as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer."[36] Jurisprudence has likewise firmly established that 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."[37] | |||||