Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO S. MIEDES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 204738 2015-07-29	GLENDA RODRIGUEZ-ANGAT v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the case at bar, petitioner was formally charged with Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference.[44] It is censurable under Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service as a less grave offense and is punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. Respondent, however, found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service with all the attendant accessory penalties. To be classified as grave, one’s misconduct must show the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules.[45]
	GR No. 172637 2015-04-22	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN-VISA YAS v. MARY ANN T. CASTRO BRION, J.
Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[18] In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules, must be manifest and established by substantial evidence. Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct. Thus, a person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.[19]
	GR No. 172218 2014-11-26	FELICIANO B. DUYON v. FORMER SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION OF CA 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]
	GR Nos. 172532 & 172544-45 2013-11-20	PRIMO C. MIRO v. MARILYN MENDOZA VDA. DE EREDEROS BRION, J.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.[37] The misconduct is considered as grave if it involves additional elements such as corruption or willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proven by substantial evidence; otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. 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.[38]
	GR No. 192685 2013-07-31	OSCAR R. AMPIL v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PEREZ, J.
In (G.R. No. 199115), the elements particular to Grave Misconduct are, by the Ombudsman's own finding, present. 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.[52] This has already been demonstrated as discussed above. And, there is here a manifest disregard for established rules on land registration by a Register of Deeds himself. As he himself admits in his letter, Espenesin erased the name of ASB on the specified CCTs because he believed that Serrano's request for the re-issuance thereof in MICO's name constituted simple error.