This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Respondent was charged with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. A person charged with grave misconduct is put on notice that he stands accused of misconduct coupled with any of the elements of corruption or willful intent to violate the law or established rules.[35]Meanwhile, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is classified as a grave offense with a corresponding penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and the penalty of dismissal for the second offense.[36] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Be that as it may, we observed that respondent had been in the government service for more or less 20 years, during which he made a steady ascent from a lowly laborer at the National Irrigation Administration, Catbalogan, Samar, to a Civil Engineer II at the SED-DPWH.[39] Respondent also had no previous derogatory record as a government employee. Moreover, he returned the loyalty cash award of P1,500.00.[40] We can consider the foregoing as mitigating circumstances[41] to lower the penalty imposable on respondent pursuant to Section 53 of the Civil Service Rules, viz: Section 53. Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating, or Alternative Circumstances. - In the determination of the penalties to be imposed, mitigating, aggravating and alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
|||||
| Leaving aside the discrepancy of the designation of the offense in the formal charge, it must be discussed whether or not petitioner is indeed guilty, as found by the CA and CSC, of "Grave Misconduct," as distinguished from "Simple Misconduct." From the findings of fact of the CSC, it is clear that there is misconduct on the part of petitioner. The term "misconduct" denotes intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior.[13] | |||||