This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-09-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| I agree that "flagrant disregard of rules" may qualify an otherwise simple misconduct into a gross one but I discount its existence in this case. In my view, Justice Ong's receipt of arrangements regarding the robe of the Black Nazarene and his visits to Napoles thereafter does not show a "propensity to disregard the rules"[30] on his part. | |||||
|
2014-09-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System,[93] this court described the instances when there is flagrant disregard of an established rule: 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; in the repeated voluntary disregard of established rules in the procurement of supplies; in the practice of illegally collecting fees more than what is prescribed for delayed registration of marriages; when several violations or disregard of regulations governing the collection of government funds were committed; and when the employee arrogated unto herself responsibilities that were clearly beyond her given duties. The common denominator in these cases was the employee's propensity to ignore the rules as clearly manifested by his or her actions.[94] (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted) | |||||
|
2014-06-02 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Misconduct has a legal and uniform definition. It is defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are present.[11] | |||||
|
2013-11-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at the very heart of procedural due process. The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as applied to administrative proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[15] Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former a formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary,[16] and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied. Ledesma v. Court of Appeals[17] elaborates on the well-established meaning of due process in administrative proceedings in this wise: x x x Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[18] | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Grave misconduct, of which Espenesin has been charged, consists in a public officer's deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. It is regarded as grave when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules are present.[57] In particular, corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the official's unlawful and wrongful use of his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[58] | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules are present. Otherwise, a misconduct is only simple.[9] Accordingly, simple misconduct has been defined as an unacceptable behavior which transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers,[10] work-related or not.[11] | |||||
|
2013-04-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Misconduct is considered grave if accompanied by corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a f1agrant disregard of established rules, which must all be supported by substantial evidence.[41] If the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave, the person charged may only be held liable for simple misconduct. "Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct.''[42] | |||||
|
2012-03-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Further, in Monico K. Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System,[56] the Court considered Imperial's act of approving the salary loans of eight employees "who lacked the necessary contribution requirements" under GSIS Policy and Procedural Guidelines No. 153-99 as simple misconduct. It refused to categorize the act as grave misconduct because no substantial evidence was adduced to prove the elements of "corruption," "clear intent to violate the law" or "flagrant disregard of established rule" that must be present to characterize the misconduct as grave. | |||||