This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-03-20 |
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." | |||||
|
2011-10-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Flagrant disregard of rules is a ground that jurisprudence has already touched upon. It has been demonstrated, among others, in the instances when there had been open defiance of a customary rule;[23] in the repeated voluntary disregard of established rules in the procurement of supplies;[24] in the practice of illegally collecting fees more than what is prescribed for delayed registration of marriages;[25] when several violations or disregard of regulations governing the collection of government funds were committed;[26] and when the employee arrogated unto herself responsibilities that were clearly beyond her given duties.[27] The common denominator in these cases was the employee's propensity to ignore the rules as clearly manifested by his or her actions. | |||||
|
2011-10-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| On October 19, 2005, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) administratively charged the petitioner, then Branch Manager of the GSIS Naga Field Office, with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service[4] for approving the requests for salary loans of eight GSIS Naga Field Office employees who lacked the contribution requirements under GSIS Policy and Procedural Guidelines (PPG) No. 153-99,[5] giving them unwarranted benefits through his evident bad faith, manifest partiality or gross negligence, and causing injury to the pension fund.[6] He was required to answer and was preventively suspended for ninety (90) days. | |||||
|
2011-03-28 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. 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 proved by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.[22] Conversely, one cannot be found guilty of misconduct in the absence of substantial evidence. In one case, we affirmed a finding of grave misconduct because there was substantial evidence of voluntary disregard of established rules in the procurement of supplies as well as of manifest intent to disregard said rules.[23] We have also ruled that complicity in the transgression of a regulation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue constitutes simple misconduct only as there was failure to establish flagrancy in respondent's act for her to be held liable of gross misconduct.[24] On the other hand, we have likewise dismissed a complaint for knowingly rendering an unjust order, gross ignorance of the law, and grave misconduct, since the complainant did not even indicate the particular acts of the judge which were allegedly violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[25] | |||||
|
2011-01-18 |
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. | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The issue of whether petitioner's guilt for dishonesty is supported by substantial evidence is factual in nature, the determination of which is beyond the ambit of this Court. Our task in an appeal by petition for review on certiorari as a jurisdictional matter is limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the CA.[20] The Supreme Court cannot be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the petitioner in the proceedings below and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the court a quo and the appellate court were correct in their appreciation of the evidence.[21] More so, in the instant case, where the CA affirmed the factual findings of the CSC. Although the rule admits of several exceptions, none of them are in point in this case. | |||||