Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NELLIE R. APOLONIO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 204105 2015-10-14	GERONIMO S. ROSAS v. DILAUSAN MONTOR 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]
	GR No. 208341 2015-06-17	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MA. NIMFA P. DE VILLA MENDOZA, 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 office."[32] Misconduct becomes grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, wilful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.[33] Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[34]
	GR No. 173277 2015-02-25	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. PRUDENCIO C. QUIMBO MENDOZA, J.
In the case of Ombudsman v. Apolonio,[13] the Court categorically delineated the Ombudsman's power to directly impose, not merely recommend, administrative sanctions against erring public officials or employees, viz: The Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee, in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority. The challenge to the Ombudsman's power to impose these penalties, on the allegation that the Constitution only grants it recommendatory powers, had already been rejected by this Court.
	GR No. 173121 2013-04-03	FRANKLIN ALEJANDRO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FACT-FINDING BRION, J.
These powers unmistakably grant the Office of the Ombudsman the power to directly impose administrative sanctions; its power is not merely recommendatory. We held in Office of the Ombudsman v. Apolonio[29] that: It is likewise apparent that under RA 6770, the lawmakers intended to provide the Office of the Ombudsman with sufficient muscle to ensure that it can effectively carry out its mandate as protector of the people against inept and corrupt government officers and employees. The Office was granted the power to punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court. It was given disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies (with the exception only of impeachable officers, members of Congress and the Judiciary). Also, it can preventively suspend any officer under its authority pending an investigation when the case so warrants.[30] (italics supplied; emphasis and underscore ours)
	GR No. 194368 2013-04-02	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ARLIC ALMOJUELA BRION, J.
We find SJO2 Almojuela guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of his duties as Senior Jail Officer II. 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."[79] 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."[80] In SJO2 Almojuela's case, we hold it established by substantial evidence that he consented to Lao's escape from the Makati City Jail. Thus, there was willful violation of his duty as Senior Jail Officer II to oversee the jail compound's security, rendering him liable for gross misconduct.
	GR No. 194368 2013-04-02	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ARLIC ALMOJUELA BRION, J.
We find SJO2 Almojuela guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of his duties as Senior Jail Officer II. 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."[79] 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."[80] In SJO2 Almojuela's case, we hold it established by substantial evidence that he consented to Lao's escape from the Makati City Jail. Thus, there was willful violation of his duty as Senior Jail Officer II to oversee the jail compound's security, rendering him liable for gross misconduct.
	GR No. 176172 2012-11-20	EFREN G. AMIT v. COA BRION, J.
We declared in Office of the Ombudsman v. Apolonio[25] that "if a nexus between the public [officer's] acts and functions is established, such act is properly referred to as misconduct."