This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-07-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule where a finding of guilt would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent committed acts stated in the complaint. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard of substantial evidence is met when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or even preponderant,[42] and respondent’s participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[43] | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Bunag-Cabacungan and her husband were charged with misconduct for allegedly taking advantage of their official positions to cause the issuance of the emancipation patent in the name of respondent Bunag-Cabacungan and failing to rectify the erroneous issuance of the said emancipation patent, as well as the wrongful use of respondent's maiden name in her application for such emancipation patent. Misconduct in office has a specific legal meaning in our jurisdiction. Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[42] Moreover, "to be considered as 'misconduct,' the act must have a 'direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect or failure to discharge the duties of the office."'[43] | |||||
|
2014-09-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is also classified as a grave offense under Section 22(t) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and other pertinent Civil Service laws, with the penalty for the first offense being suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year, and for the second offense being dismissal.[15] The Civil Service laws and rules contain no description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. However, jurisprudence has been instructive, with the Court having considered the following acts or omissions as constitutive of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, namely: (a) misappropriation of public funds; (b) abandonment of office; (c) failure to report back to work without prior notice; (d) failure to keep public records and property safe; (e) making false entries in public documents; and (f) falsification of court orders.[16] | |||||
|
2013-11-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Civil Service law and rules do not give a concrete description of what specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but the Court defined such an offense in Ito v. De Vera[13] as acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary, thereby prejudicing the best interest of the administration of justice. In Government Service Insurance System v. Mayordomo,[14] the Court further declared that the administrative offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service need not be related to or connected with the public officer's official functions. As long as the questioned conduct tarnishes the image and integrity of his public office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public officer or employee. | |||||