This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-12-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Respondents dropped petitioner from the roll of employees in obedience to Section 2,[21] Rule XII of the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions. For acting within the purview of law, no bad faith can be ascribed to them. Neither was bad faith evident when respondents failed to immediately carry out the Order of CSC-ARMM. While the Order was executory after 15 days from receipt by respondents,[22] and the appeal did not stay execution,[23] mere delay in its implementation did not constitute evident bad faith. Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage,[24] which we did not find present in this case. Even assuming that the action taken by respondents was erroneous, it was certainly not criminal in nature. [25] At most, the liability of respondents may be civil if not administrative. Section 83 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service is pertinent:Sec. 83. Non-Execution of Decision. Any officer or employee who willfully refuses or fails to implement the final resolution, decision, order or ruling of the Commission to the prejudice of the public service and the affected party, may be cited in contempt of the Commission and administratively charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service or neglect of duty. | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan,[90] this Court held that the act of a sheriff taking personal property not included in the notice of levy, without issuing a receipt therefor, or listing the same in the sheriff's return, is not criminal in nature, the appropriate relief against the erring sheriff being a civil action for damages or an administrative complaint for the faulty implementation of the writ of execution.[91] | |||||