This case has been cited 7 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] | |||||
|
2014-02-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| character of the man from the character of the officer x x x. It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer 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 x x x.[41] Owning properties disproportionate to one's salary and not declaring them in the corresponding SALNs cannot, without more, be classified as grave misconduct. Even if these allegations were true, we cannot see our way clear how the fact of non-declarations would have a bearing | |||||
|
2008-05-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is settled in jurisprudence that "misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[16] In grave misconduct, there must be substantial evidence showing that the acts complained of are corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constitute flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules.[17] | |||||
|
2007-11-20 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is to be noted that the acts of the respondent judge complained of have no direct relation with his official duties as City Judge. The misfeasance or malfeasance of a judge, to warrant disciplinary action 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 said judge. In Milanes v. De Guzman,[19] a mayor collared a person, shook him violently, and threatened to kill him in the course of a political rally of the Nacionalista Party where said mayor was acting as the toastmaster. The Court held that the acts of the mayor cannot come under the class of the administrative offense of misconduct, considering that as the toastmaster in a non-governmental rally, he acted in his private capacity, for said function was not part of his duties as mayor. In Amosco v. Magro,[20] the respondent Judge was charged with grave misconduct for his alleged failure to pay the amount of P215.80 for the purchase of empty Burma sacks. In dismissing the case, the Court sustained, among others, the argument of respondent Judge that the charge did not constitute misconduct because it did not involve the discharge of his official duties. It was further held that misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual. So also, a Judge's abandonment of, and failure to give support to his family;[21] and alleged sale of carnapped motor vehicles,[22] do not fall within the species of misconduct, not being related to the discharge of official functions. | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Following a string of precedents, Amosco v. Magro[43] defines misconduct in this wise:Misconduct in office has a definite and well understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual.... It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer, 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.[44] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| To constitute grave misconduct, the acts complained of should be corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constitute flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules.[12] We find the totality of respondent's acts well within this definition. Respondent failed to live up to the high ethical standards demanded by the office she occupies. Respondent also undermined the integrity of the service and jeopardized the public's faith in the courts. Respondent's acts betray her complicity, if not participation, in acts that were irregular and violative of ethics and procedure, causing the removal from the service of her superior, Judge Yaneza. | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In grave misconduct, there must be substantial evidence showing that the acts complained of are corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constitute flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules.[26] Respondent sheriff's introduction in evidence of the falsified police report, committing perjury and giving false testimony, are plainly corrupt acts and show an intent to disregard flagrantly the law. They constitute grave misconduct that corrodes respect for the courts. Incidentally, respondent sheriff's acts of perjury and of giving false testimony, which show a predisposition to lie, defraud and deceive, also constitute dishonesty.[27] | |||||