Lawyerly

GR No. 188213

2016-01-11

NATIVIDAD C. CRUZ v. PANDACAN HIKER'S CLUB

PERALTA, J.

It is held that the administrative offense of conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service is committed when the questioned conduct tarnished the image and integrity of the officer's public office; the conduct need not be related or connected to the public officer's official functions for the said officer to be meted the corresponding penalty.[27] The basis for such liability is Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, particularly Section 4 (c) thereof, which ordains that public officials and employees shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to public safety and public interest.[28] In one case, this Court also stated that the Machiavellian principle that "the end justifies the means" has no place in government service, which thrives on the rule of law, consistency and stability.[29]

GR No. 197307

2014-02-26

FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

VELASCO JR., J.

petitioner Hernandez's alleged acquiescence to be her dummy. To our the mind, however, we find that even if petitioners, for argument, failed to include several properties in their SALNs, the omission, by itself, does not amount to grave misconduct. Largo v. Court of Appeals[40] is instructional as to the nature of the offense. To constitute misconduct, the complained act/s or omission must have a direct relation and be linked to the performance of official duties. The Court wrote in

GR No. 190524

2014-02-17

MICHAELINA RAMOS BALASBAS v. PATRICIA B. MONAYAO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

x x x As long as the questioned conduct tarnished the image and integrity of his/ her public office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public officer or employee. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) enunciates, inter alia, the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. Section 4(c) of the Code commands that "[public officials and employees] shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. x x x"[31]

AM No. P-13-3119

2014-02-10

EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. OFELIA S. CONTRERAS-SORIANO v. CLERK III LIZA D. SALAMANCA

REYES, J.

While Salamanca's complained acts involved technically private money, the deceit she pulled off disrupted the public's faith in the integrity of the judiciary and its personnel. She failed to live up to the high ethical standards required of court employees thereby prejudicing the best interest of the administration of justice. Her conduct tarnished the image and integrity of her public office[10] and violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, Section 4(c) of which commands that public officials and employees shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to public safety and public interest.[11]

GR No. 174321

2013-10-22

ROLANDO GANZON v. FERNANDO ARLOS

BERSAMIN, J.

The Court stressed in Largo v. Court of Appeals[18] the criteria that an act, to constitute a misconduct, must not be committed in his private capacity and should bear a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties.

AM No. P-09-2726

2013-08-28

A.M. No. P-10-2884 JUDGE ROBERTO P. BUENAVENTURA v. FE A. MABALOT

MENDOZA, J.

Misconduct in office has been authoritatively defined by Justice Tuazon in Lacson v. Lopez in these words: "Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer x x x It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office x x x.[27]

AM No. RTJ-10-2235

2013-03-11

OCA v. JESUS L. GRAGEDA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that in order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative proceeding, the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent public official or employee. [16] This is because the filing of an administrative case is predicated on the holding of a position or office in the government service.[17] However, once jurisdiction has attached, the same is not lost by the mere fact that the public official or employee was no longer in office during the pendency of the case. In fine, cessation from office by reason of resignation, death or retirement is not a ground to dismiss the case filed against the said officer or employee at the time that he was still in the public service or render it moot and academic.[18]

AM No. P-06-2186

2012-07-03

FILOMENA B. CONSOLACION v. LYDIA S. GAMBITO

PER CURIAM

In Largo v. Court of Appeals,[7] it was stated that if an employee's questioned conduct tarnished the image and integrity of his public office, he was liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The basis for his liability was Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Code, particularly its Section 4(c), commands that public officials and employees shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to public safety and public interest.[8]

AM No. 2008-15-SC

2011-05-31

RE: THEFT OF USED GALVANIZED IRON SHEETS IN SC COMPOUND

PER CURIAM

Misconduct has been defined as "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, all of which must be established by substantial evidence, and must necessarily be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.[17] 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.[18] Furthermore, misconduct warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to misadministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office.[19]

AM No. P-09-2686

2011-03-28

PRISCILLA L. HERNANDO v. JULIANA Y. BENGSON

MENDOZA, J.

In resolving this issue, a review of the Court's disposition in the case of Largo v. CA[11] is instructive. In that case, it was explained that an administrative offense constitutes "misconduct" when it has a direct relation to, and is connected with, the performance of the official duties of the one charged.

AM No. 09-2-19-SC

2009-02-24

IN RE: UNDATED LETTER OF MR. LOUIS C. BIRAOGO v. NOGRALES

PER CURIAM

If only for reasons of public policy, this Court must assert and maintain its jurisdiction over members of the judiciary and other officials under its supervision and control for acts performed in office which are inimical to the service and prejudicial to the interests of litigants and the general public. If innocent, a respondent official merits vindication of his/her name and integrity as he leaves the government which he/she served well and faithfully; if guilty, he/she deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.[252]

GR No. 177666

2008-04-30

EUGENIO R. AVENIDO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

PER CURIAM

Acts may constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) enunciates, inter alia, the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. Section 4(c) of the Code commands that "[public officials and employees] shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest."[18] By showing undue interest in securing for Animus International a Permit to Import, even if it had not complied with the requirements, petitioner compromised the image and integrity of his public office. Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service are intrinsically connected since acts of dishonesty would indubitably tarnish the integrity of a public official.

AM No. P-08-2434

2008-03-03

COLLECTION OF FEE FOR TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE WITHOUT PROPER RECEIPT BY CLERK OF COURT MARCIANA APAS-PILAPIL

NACHURA, J.

The acts complained of against Ms. Pilapil, having a direct relation to, and being connected with the performance of, her official duties, constitute misconduct.[15] Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action.[16] For her failure to abide by the provision of Section 10(l), Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court and Supreme Court Circular No. 26-97 dated May 5, 1997, Ms. Pilapil should be held liable for simple misconduct. Under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, simple misconduct is classified as less grave offense with a penalty ranging from suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months, for the first offense, to dismissal, for the second offense. Nonetheless, considering the severity of the prescribed penalties, coupled with the fact that this is her first infraction, it is only proper that the penalty to be imposed on her be reduced.

	GR No. 188213 2016-01-11	NATIVIDAD C. CRUZ v. PANDACAN HIKER'S CLUB PERALTA, J.
It is held that the administrative offense of conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service is committed when the questioned conduct tarnished the image and integrity of the officer's public office; the conduct need not be related or connected to the public officer's official functions for the said officer to be meted the corresponding penalty.[27] The basis for such liability is Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, particularly Section 4 (c) thereof, which ordains that public officials and employees shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to public safety and public interest.[28] In one case, this Court also stated that the Machiavellian principle that "the end justifies the means" has no place in government service, which thrives on the rule of law, consistency and stability.[29]
	GR No. 197307 2014-02-26	FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VELASCO JR., J.
petitioner Hernandez's alleged acquiescence to be her dummy. To our the mind, however, we find that even if petitioners, for argument, failed to include several properties in their SALNs, the omission, by itself, does not amount to grave misconduct. Largo v. Court of Appeals[40] is instructional as to the nature of the offense. To constitute misconduct, the complained act/s or omission must have a direct relation and be linked to the performance of official duties. The Court wrote in
	GR No. 190524 2014-02-17	MICHAELINA RAMOS BALASBAS v. PATRICIA B. MONAYAO DEL CASTILLO, J.
x x x As long as the questioned conduct tarnished the image and integrity of his/ her public office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public officer or employee. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) enunciates, inter alia, the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. Section 4(c) of the Code commands that "[public officials and employees] shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. x x x"[31]
	AM No. P-13-3119 2014-02-10	EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. OFELIA S. CONTRERAS-SORIANO v. CLERK III LIZA D. SALAMANCA REYES, J.
While Salamanca's complained acts involved technically private money, the deceit she pulled off disrupted the public's faith in the integrity of the judiciary and its personnel. She failed to live up to the high ethical standards required of court employees thereby prejudicing the best interest of the administration of justice. Her conduct tarnished the image and integrity of her public office[10] and violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, Section 4(c) of which commands that public officials and employees shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to public safety and public interest.[11]
	GR No. 174321 2013-10-22	ROLANDO GANZON v. FERNANDO ARLOS BERSAMIN, J.
The Court stressed in Largo v. Court of Appeals[18] the criteria that an act, to constitute a misconduct, must not be committed in his private capacity and should bear a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties.
	AM No. P-09-2726 2013-08-28	A.M. No. P-10-2884 JUDGE ROBERTO P. BUENAVENTURA v. FE A. MABALOT MENDOZA, J.
Misconduct in office has been authoritatively defined by Justice Tuazon in Lacson v. Lopez in these words: "Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer x x x It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office x x x.[27]
	AM No. RTJ-10-2235 2013-03-11	OCA v. JESUS L. GRAGEDA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that in order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative proceeding, the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent public official or employee. [16] This is because the filing of an administrative case is predicated on the holding of a position or office in the government service.[17] However, once jurisdiction has attached, the same is not lost by the mere fact that the public official or employee was no longer in office during the pendency of the case. In fine, cessation from office by reason of resignation, death or retirement is not a ground to dismiss the case filed against the said officer or employee at the time that he was still in the public service or render it moot and academic.[18]
	AM No. P-06-2186 2012-07-03	FILOMENA B. CONSOLACION v. LYDIA S. GAMBITO PER CURIAM
In Largo v. Court of Appeals,[7] it was stated that if an employee's questioned conduct tarnished the image and integrity of his public office, he was liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The basis for his liability was Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Code, particularly its Section 4(c), commands that public officials and employees shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to public safety and public interest.[8]
	AM No. 2008-15-SC 2011-05-31	RE: THEFT OF USED GALVANIZED IRON SHEETS IN SC COMPOUND PER CURIAM
Misconduct has been defined as "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, all of which must be established by substantial evidence, and must necessarily be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.[17] 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.[18] Furthermore, misconduct warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to misadministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office.[19]
	AM No. P-09-2686 2011-03-28	PRISCILLA L. HERNANDO v. JULIANA Y. BENGSON MENDOZA, J.
In resolving this issue, a review of the Court's disposition in the case of Largo v. CA[11] is instructive. In that case, it was explained that an administrative offense constitutes "misconduct" when it has a direct relation to, and is connected with, the performance of the official duties of the one charged.
	AM No. 09-2-19-SC 2009-02-24	IN RE: UNDATED LETTER OF MR. LOUIS C. BIRAOGO v. NOGRALES PER CURIAM
If only for reasons of public policy, this Court must assert and maintain its jurisdiction over members of the judiciary and other officials under its supervision and control for acts performed in office which are inimical to the service and prejudicial to the interests of litigants and the general public. If innocent, a respondent official merits vindication of his/her name and integrity as he leaves the government which he/she served well and faithfully; if guilty, he/she deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.[252]
	GR No. 177666 2008-04-30	EUGENIO R. AVENIDO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PER CURIAM
Acts may constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) enunciates, inter alia, the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. Section 4(c) of the Code commands that "[public officials and employees] shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest."[18] By showing undue interest in securing for Animus International a Permit to Import, even if it had not complied with the requirements, petitioner compromised the image and integrity of his public office. Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service are intrinsically connected since acts of dishonesty would indubitably tarnish the integrity of a public official.
	AM No. P-08-2434 2008-03-03	COLLECTION OF FEE FOR TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE WITHOUT PROPER RECEIPT BY CLERK OF COURT MARCIANA APAS-PILAPIL NACHURA, J.
The acts complained of against Ms. Pilapil, having a direct relation to, and being connected with the performance of, her official duties, constitute misconduct.[15] Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action.[16] For her failure to abide by the provision of Section 10(l), Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court and Supreme Court Circular No. 26-97 dated May 5, 1997, Ms. Pilapil should be held liable for simple misconduct. Under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, simple misconduct is classified as less grave offense with a penalty ranging from suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months, for the first offense, to dismissal, for the second offense. Nonetheless, considering the severity of the prescribed penalties, coupled with the fact that this is her first infraction, it is only proper that the penalty to be imposed on her be reduced.

TEODULO V. LARGO v. CA