Lawyerly

AM No. CA-15-31-P

2015-06-16

COMMITTEE ON SECURITY v. REYNALDO V. DIANCO - CHIEF SECURITY

PER CURIAM

Nonetheless, Section 53 allows analogous circumstances to be considered as mitigating. In Civil Service Commission v. Belagan,[94] we considered the respondent’s unblemished record in the past and numerous awards as mitigating. Similarly, in Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud,[95] we likewise mitigated respondent’s administrative liability as he had not been previously charged or administratively sanctioned. In De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza,[96] we refrained from meting out the penalty of suspension for one year without pay because it was Mendoza's first offense. Also in Buntag v. Paña,[97] we affirmed the reduction of the penalty considering that it was the respondent’s first infraction.

AM OCA IPI No. 10-25-SB-J

2013-01-15

RE: COMPLAINT OF LEONARDO A. VELASCO

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

"Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or a standard of behavior.[22] To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions of a public officer.[23] In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be established."[24]

GR No. 202914

2012-09-26

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. HEIDI R. CHUA

BRION, J.

The Court, in a Rule 45 petition, is not a trier of facts.[5] An exception occurs when the findings of fact of the CA are at variance with the findings of the administrative bodies like the GSIS and the CSC; in this exceptional case, the Court reviews the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findings based on the records.[6]

AM No. P-10-2817

2011-01-26

CORAZON TENORIO v. ALYN C. PERLAS

VELASCO JR., J.

Accordingly, Sheriff Perlas is only guilty of misconduct in the discharge of her functions. Misconduct is a transgression of an established rule of action. More particularly, misconduct is the unlawful behavior of a public officer. It means the "intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official."[17] In order for misconduct to constitute an administrative offense, it should be related to or connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[18]

AM No. RTJ-06-2025

2010-04-05

CECILIA GADRINAB SENARLO v. JUDGE MAXIMO G.W. PADERANGA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer.[19] Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[20]

AM No. P-09-2676

2009-12-16

JUDGE JUANITA T. GUERRERO v. TERESITA V. ONG

BERSAMIN, J.

A court employee is not prohibited from helping individuals in the course of performing her official duties, but her actions cannot be left unchecked when the help extended puts under suspicion the integrity of the Judiciary.[12] Indeed, she is strictly instructed not to use her official position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges, or exemptions for herself or for others.[13] The evident purpose of the instruction is precisely to free the court employees from suspicion of misconduct.

GR No. 185379

2009-11-27

PEOPLE v. VS.ZENAIDA QUEBRAL Y MATEO

ABAD, J.

Two.The accused-appellants point out that the testimony of PO3 Galvez cannot support their conviction since it does not bear the corroboration of the other officers involved in the police operation against them.But the failure of these other officers did not weaken the prosecution evidence.The lone declaration of an eyewitness is sufficient to convict if, as in this case, the court finds the same credible.[11]Credibility goes into a person's integrity, to the fact that he is worthy of belief,[12] and does not come with the number of witnesses.[13]

GR No. 165121

2008-02-14

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. PETER E. NIERRAS

QUISUMBING, J.

Clearly, there is no doubt that the act of Nierras constituted misconduct. However, it would be inappropriate to impose on him the penalty of dismissal from the service. Section 16, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides that in the determination of penalties to be imposed, mitigating and aggravating circumstances may be considered.[15] Considering the fact that this is the first time that Nierras is being administratively charged, it would be too harsh to impose on him the penalty of dismissal outright. Worth noting, in the case of Civil Service Commission v. Belagan,[16] although the Court found that the act of the offending public official constituted grave misconduct, still it did not impose the penalty of dismissal on him, considering the fact that it was his first offense.[17]

AM NO. P-05-1985

2007-07-26

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. SANTOS ENRIE P. PEROCHO

PER CURIAM

Misconduct, by uniform legal definition, is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior as well as gross negligence by a public officer.[20] To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[21] In this case, respondent's submission of his PDS is not related to or connected with the performance of his official functions and duties as a government employee. The CSC and the investigating officer failed to show reasonable connection that the offense committed constitutes grave misconduct. Thus, we find respondent guilty only of dishonesty.

AM NO. P-05-2016

2007-04-19

PEDRO SALAZAR v. EDMUNDO B. BARRIGA

CORONA, J.

Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior.[7] To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of official functions and duties of a public officer.[8]

GR NO. 160195

2006-10-30

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. FLORELIO U. MANZANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Nonetheless, this Court had observed that respondent had spent 32 years of his life in the government service, 18 years of which was with the LBP, and he had no previous derogatory record therein. At present, respondent is nearly 80 years old and is very sick and bed-ridden. These circumstances are considered as mitigating circumstances[41] which should be appreciated in lowering the penalty on respondent pursuant to Section 53 of the 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.

GR NO. 167726

2006-07-20

ROBERTO M. VILLANUEVA v. QUISUMBING

TINGA, J.

Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest. 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. [45]

GR NO. 145564

2006-03-24

CORAZON G. BUNTAG v. NIDA PAGA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Civil Service Commission v. Belagan,[12] the respondent, who was charged with sexual harassment and found guilty of Grave Misconduct, was meted out the penalty of suspension from office without pay for one year, given the respondent's length of service, unblemished record in the past and numerous awards.

	AM No. CA-15-31-P 2015-06-16	COMMITTEE ON SECURITY v. REYNALDO V. DIANCO - CHIEF SECURITY PER CURIAM
Nonetheless, Section 53 allows analogous circumstances to be considered as mitigating. In Civil Service Commission v. Belagan,[94] we considered the respondent’s unblemished record in the past and numerous awards as mitigating. Similarly, in Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud,[95] we likewise mitigated respondent’s administrative liability as he had not been previously charged or administratively sanctioned. In De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza,[96] we refrained from meting out the penalty of suspension for one year without pay because it was Mendoza's first offense. Also in Buntag v. Paña,[97] we affirmed the reduction of the penalty considering that it was the respondent’s first infraction.
	AM OCA IPI No. 10-25-SB-J 2013-01-15	RE: COMPLAINT OF LEONARDO A. VELASCO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
"Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or a standard of behavior.[22] To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions of a public officer.[23] In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be established."[24]
	GR No. 202914 2012-09-26	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. HEIDI R. CHUA BRION, J.
The Court, in a Rule 45 petition, is not a trier of facts.[5] An exception occurs when the findings of fact of the CA are at variance with the findings of the administrative bodies like the GSIS and the CSC; in this exceptional case, the Court reviews the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findings based on the records.[6]
	AM No. P-10-2817 2011-01-26	CORAZON TENORIO v. ALYN C. PERLAS VELASCO JR., J.
Accordingly, Sheriff Perlas is only guilty of misconduct in the discharge of her functions. Misconduct is a transgression of an established rule of action. More particularly, misconduct is the unlawful behavior of a public officer. It means the "intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official."[17] In order for misconduct to constitute an administrative offense, it should be related to or connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[18]
	AM No. RTJ-06-2025 2010-04-05	CECILIA GADRINAB SENARLO v. JUDGE MAXIMO G.W. PADERANGA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer.[19] Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[20]
	AM No. P-09-2676 2009-12-16	JUDGE JUANITA T. GUERRERO v. TERESITA V. ONG BERSAMIN, J.
A court employee is not prohibited from helping individuals in the course of performing her official duties, but her actions cannot be left unchecked when the help extended puts under suspicion the integrity of the Judiciary.[12] Indeed, she is strictly instructed not to use her official position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges, or exemptions for herself or for others.[13] The evident purpose of the instruction is precisely to free the court employees from suspicion of misconduct.
	GR No. 185379 2009-11-27	PEOPLE v. VS.ZENAIDA QUEBRAL Y MATEO ABAD, J.
Two.The accused-appellants point out that the testimony of PO3 Galvez cannot support their conviction since it does not bear the corroboration of the other officers involved in the police operation against them.But the failure of these other officers did not weaken the prosecution evidence.The lone declaration of an eyewitness is sufficient to convict if, as in this case, the court finds the same credible.[11]Credibility goes into a person's integrity, to the fact that he is worthy of belief,[12] and does not come with the number of witnesses.[13]
	GR No. 165121 2008-02-14	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. PETER E. NIERRAS QUISUMBING, J.
Clearly, there is no doubt that the act of Nierras constituted misconduct. However, it would be inappropriate to impose on him the penalty of dismissal from the service. Section 16, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides that in the determination of penalties to be imposed, mitigating and aggravating circumstances may be considered.[15] Considering the fact that this is the first time that Nierras is being administratively charged, it would be too harsh to impose on him the penalty of dismissal outright. Worth noting, in the case of Civil Service Commission v. Belagan,[16] although the Court found that the act of the offending public official constituted grave misconduct, still it did not impose the penalty of dismissal on him, considering the fact that it was his first offense.[17]
	AM NO. P-05-1985 2007-07-26	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. SANTOS ENRIE P. PEROCHO PER CURIAM
Misconduct, by uniform legal definition, is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior as well as gross negligence by a public officer.[20] To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[21] In this case, respondent's submission of his PDS is not related to or connected with the performance of his official functions and duties as a government employee. The CSC and the investigating officer failed to show reasonable connection that the offense committed constitutes grave misconduct. Thus, we find respondent guilty only of dishonesty.
	AM NO. P-05-2016 2007-04-19	PEDRO SALAZAR v. EDMUNDO B. BARRIGA CORONA, J.
Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior.[7] To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of official functions and duties of a public officer.[8]
	GR NO. 160195 2006-10-30	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. FLORELIO U. MANZANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Nonetheless, this Court had observed that respondent had spent 32 years of his life in the government service, 18 years of which was with the LBP, and he had no previous derogatory record therein. At present, respondent is nearly 80 years old and is very sick and bed-ridden. These circumstances are considered as mitigating circumstances[41] which should be appreciated in lowering the penalty on respondent pursuant to Section 53 of the 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.
	GR NO. 167726 2006-07-20	ROBERTO M. VILLANUEVA v. QUISUMBING TINGA, J.
Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest. 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. [45]
	GR NO. 145564 2006-03-24	CORAZON G. BUNTAG v. NIDA PAGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Civil Service Commission v. Belagan,[12] the respondent, who was charged with sexual harassment and found guilty of Grave Misconduct, was meted out the penalty of suspension from office without pay for one year, given the respondent's length of service, unblemished record in the past and numerous awards.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ALLYSON BELAGAN