Lawyerly

GR No. 204171

2015-04-15

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. WILFREDO B. AGUSTINO

MENDOZA, J.

In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be evident. Misconduct, in the administrative sense, is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action.[34] Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[35] The element of misappropriation is not indispensable in an administrative charge of grave misconduct.

AM No. 2008-23-SC

2014-09-30

ALLEGED LOSS OF VARIOUS BOXES OF COPY PAPER DURING THEIR TRANSFER FROM PROPERTY DIVISION

BERSAMIN, J.

There is grave misconduct when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule are present.[12] Dishonesty is defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness.[13] Both gross misconduct and dishonesty are grave offenses that are punishable by dismissal even for the first offense.[14]

AM No. P-11-3019

2012-03-20

SHERYLL C. DELA CRUZ v. PAMELA P. MALUNAO

PER CURIAM

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer.[30] The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules.[31] Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his position or office to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[32] Section 2, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel states: "Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions."

GR No. 181881

2011-10-18

BRICCIO 'RICKY' A. POLLO v. CHAIRPERSON KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Well-settled is the rule that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, like the CSC, are accorded not only respect but even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[55]

GR No. 191224

2011-10-04

MONICO K. IMPERIAL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

BRION, J.

Misconduct has a legal and uniform definition. 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.[20] A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are present.[21] Otherwise, a misconduct is only simple.

GR No. 149193

2011-04-04

RICARDO B. BANGAYAN v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION

SERENO, J.

Neither can petitioner Bangayan claim any deprivation of due process when the trial court ordered the reinstatement of Mr. Lao's testimony without any motion or prayer from respondent RCBC. The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. [133] This right, however, has always been understood as requiring not necessarily an actual cross-examination but merely an opportunity to exercise the right to cross-examine if desired. [134] What is proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential precept is the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine. [135]

AM No. P-10-2788

2011-01-18

OCA

PER CURIAM

The Court defines misconduct as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[8] The misconduct is 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.[9] As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. An act need not be tantamount to a crime for it to be considered as grave misconduct as in fact, crimes involving moral turpitude are treated as a separate ground for dismissal under the Administrative Code.[10] We agree with the findings and recommendation of both the Investigating Judge and the OCA that respondent committed grave misconduct which, under Section 52 (A)(3), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the first offense.

GR No. 182248

2008-12-18

EQUITABLE PCI BANKING CORPORATION v. RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION

VELASCO JR., J.

Citing Vertudes v. Buenaflor, petitioners also cry denial of due process when they were allegedly denied the right to cross-examine the witnesses presented by RCBC. It is true that in Vertudes, we stated: "The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process."[68]

GR No. 175201

2008-04-23

OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO v. LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Before proceeding to the merits of the instant Petition, this Court deems it necessary to first address the allegation of Bungubung that he was denied due process by the Ombudsman. The fact that no formal hearing took place is not sufficient ground to say that due process was not afforded Bungubung. It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, including those before the Ombudsman, cases may be submitted for resolution on the basis of affidavits and pleadings. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. It is, therefore, not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimonies.[20] Undoubtedly, due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of,[21] which requirement was afforded Bungubung.[22]

GR No. 173151

2008-03-28

EDUARDO BUGHAW v. TREASURE ISLAND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC both ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed from employment and ordered the payment of his unpaid wages, backwages, and separation pay, while the Court of Appeals found otherwise. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, on one hand, and the Court of Appeals, on the other, arrived at divergent conclusions although they considered the very same evidences submitted by the parties. It is, thus, incumbent upon us to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that petitioner was illegally dismissed. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[20]

AM No. P-04-1815

2007-10-18

RONCESVALLES B. FILOTEO v. ARTURO C. CALAGO

PER CURIAM

Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[14]

GR NO. 169570

2007-03-02

RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Indubitably, such self-serving and unsubstantiated declaration is insufficient to establish a case before quasi-judicial bodies. Well-entrenched is the rule that the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in quasi-judicial bodies is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might opine otherwise.[36]

GR NOS. 171322-24

2006-11-30

MARIANITO S. VICTORIANO v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

As regards the right to confront and cross-examine the opposing party's witnesses, the same is indeed a fundamental right which is part of due process. However, the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record.[15] In the instant case, petitioner's counsel did not cross-examine the opposing party's witnesses due to his failure to cooperate in preparing his defense. In fact, records show that it was petitioner's counsel who suggested to the court to cite him in contempt and to cancel his bail bond for failure to attend the hearings. Thus, he could not complain at this stage of the proceedings that he was denied the right to confront the witnesses against him.

GR NOS. 148500-01

2006-11-29

TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. NLRC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Indubitably, the list submitted by the petitioner containing the names of 123 employees who allegedly participated in the second strike, including the so-called uncontested notices of termination sent to those employees, cannot be given the stature of substantial evidence, for other than they were unilaterally prepared by the petitioner and evidently self-serving, they are not enough to convince even the unreasonable mind. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable mind might conceivably opine otherwise.[15]

GR NO. 147640

2006-10-16

JOWETT K. GOLANGCO v. ATTY. JONE B. FUNG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Court defined misconduct as an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official.[9] As differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.[10]

	GR No. 204171 2015-04-15	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. WILFREDO B. AGUSTINO MENDOZA, J.
In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be evident. Misconduct, in the administrative sense, is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action.[34] Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[35] The element of misappropriation is not indispensable in an administrative charge of grave misconduct.
	AM No. 2008-23-SC 2014-09-30	ALLEGED LOSS OF VARIOUS BOXES OF COPY PAPER DURING THEIR TRANSFER FROM PROPERTY DIVISION BERSAMIN, J.
There is grave misconduct when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule are present.[12] Dishonesty is defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness.[13] Both gross misconduct and dishonesty are grave offenses that are punishable by dismissal even for the first offense.[14]
	AM No. P-11-3019 2012-03-20	SHERYLL C. DELA CRUZ v. PAMELA P. MALUNAO PER CURIAM
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer.[30] The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules.[31] Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his position or office to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[32] Section 2, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel states: "Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions."
	GR No. 181881 2011-10-18	BRICCIO 'RICKY' A. POLLO v. CHAIRPERSON KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Well-settled is the rule that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, like the CSC, are accorded not only respect but even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[55]
	GR No. 191224 2011-10-04	MONICO K. IMPERIAL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM BRION, J.
Misconduct has a legal and uniform definition. 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.[20] A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are present.[21] Otherwise, a misconduct is only simple.
	GR No. 149193 2011-04-04	RICARDO B. BANGAYAN v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION SERENO, J.
Neither can petitioner Bangayan claim any deprivation of due process when the trial court ordered the reinstatement of Mr. Lao's testimony without any motion or prayer from respondent RCBC. The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. [133] This right, however, has always been understood as requiring not necessarily an actual cross-examination but merely an opportunity to exercise the right to cross-examine if desired. [134] What is proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential precept is the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine. [135]
	AM No. P-10-2788 2011-01-18	OCA PER CURIAM
The Court defines misconduct as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[8] The misconduct is 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.[9] As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. An act need not be tantamount to a crime for it to be considered as grave misconduct as in fact, crimes involving moral turpitude are treated as a separate ground for dismissal under the Administrative Code.[10] We agree with the findings and recommendation of both the Investigating Judge and the OCA that respondent committed grave misconduct which, under Section 52 (A)(3), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the first offense.
	GR No. 182248 2008-12-18	EQUITABLE PCI BANKING CORPORATION v. RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
Citing Vertudes v. Buenaflor, petitioners also cry denial of due process when they were allegedly denied the right to cross-examine the witnesses presented by RCBC. It is true that in Vertudes, we stated: "The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process."[68]
	GR No. 175201 2008-04-23	OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO v. LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Before proceeding to the merits of the instant Petition, this Court deems it necessary to first address the allegation of Bungubung that he was denied due process by the Ombudsman. The fact that no formal hearing took place is not sufficient ground to say that due process was not afforded Bungubung. It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, including those before the Ombudsman, cases may be submitted for resolution on the basis of affidavits and pleadings. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. It is, therefore, not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimonies.[20] Undoubtedly, due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of,[21] which requirement was afforded Bungubung.[22]
	GR No. 173151 2008-03-28	EDUARDO BUGHAW v. TREASURE ISLAND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC both ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed from employment and ordered the payment of his unpaid wages, backwages, and separation pay, while the Court of Appeals found otherwise. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, on one hand, and the Court of Appeals, on the other, arrived at divergent conclusions although they considered the very same evidences submitted by the parties. It is, thus, incumbent upon us to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that petitioner was illegally dismissed. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[20]
	AM No. P-04-1815 2007-10-18	RONCESVALLES B. FILOTEO v. ARTURO C. CALAGO PER CURIAM
Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[14]
	GR NO. 169570 2007-03-02	RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indubitably, such self-serving and unsubstantiated declaration is insufficient to establish a case before quasi-judicial bodies. Well-entrenched is the rule that the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in quasi-judicial bodies is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might opine otherwise.[36]
	GR NOS. 171322-24 2006-11-30	MARIANITO S. VICTORIANO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As regards the right to confront and cross-examine the opposing party's witnesses, the same is indeed a fundamental right which is part of due process. However, the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record.[15] In the instant case, petitioner's counsel did not cross-examine the opposing party's witnesses due to his failure to cooperate in preparing his defense. In fact, records show that it was petitioner's counsel who suggested to the court to cite him in contempt and to cancel his bail bond for failure to attend the hearings. Thus, he could not complain at this stage of the proceedings that he was denied the right to confront the witnesses against him.
	GR NOS. 148500-01 2006-11-29	TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indubitably, the list submitted by the petitioner containing the names of 123 employees who allegedly participated in the second strike, including the so-called uncontested notices of termination sent to those employees, cannot be given the stature of substantial evidence, for other than they were unilaterally prepared by the petitioner and evidently self-serving, they are not enough to convince even the unreasonable mind. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable mind might conceivably opine otherwise.[15]
	GR NO. 147640 2006-10-16	JOWETT K. GOLANGCO v. ATTY. JONE B. FUNG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court defined misconduct as an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official.[9] As differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.[10]

TERESITA L. VERTUDES v. JULIE BUENAFLOR