Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BIR v. LILIA B. ORGANO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 194169 2013-12-04	ROMEO R. ARAULLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. x x x [And when] the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule [are] manifest,"[45] the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct. Evidently, a public officer who acts pursuant to the dictates of law and within the limits of allowable discretion can hardly be considered guilty of misconduct.
	AM No. P-12-3036 2012-06-20	CLERK OF COURT ARLYN A. HERMANO v. EDWIN D. CARDEÑO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Arcenio v. Pagorogon,[10] the Court defined misconduct as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. As differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct "the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest."[11] 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.[12] In this case, respondent was a mere Utility Worker who had no authority to take custody of the office attendance logbook, the DTRs of his office mates, let alone case records. Yet, respondent, taking advantage of his position as a Utility Worker and the access to the court records and documents which such position afforded him, repeatedly wrought havoc on the proper administration of justice by taking case records outside of the court's premises and preoccupying his office mates with the time-consuming task of locating documents. Without doubt his actions constitute grave misconduct which merits the penalty of dismissal. However, in view of his resignation, the Court finds as proper the recommendation of the OCA to instead impose on respondent the penalty of fine in the amount of P10,000 with forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. This of course is without prejudice to any criminal liability he may have already incurred.
	GR No. 191224 2011-10-04	MONICO K. IMPERIAL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM BRION, J.
Atty. Molina filed a motion for reconsideration, pointing out that the GSIS Rules of Procedure set the venue of pre-hearing conferences at the GSIS Main Office in Pasay City. The Hearing Officer denied the motion for reconsideration in her August 11, 2006 order,[9] stating that the prosecution requested the change of venue. Copies of the order were duly sent via fax and regular mail. Atty. Molina received the faxed copy on August 14, 2006, while he received the registered mail on August 18, 2006.
	GR No. 178454 2011-03-28	FILIPINA SAMSON v. JULIA A. RESTRIVERA 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]
	AM No. P-06-2225 2010-11-23	BERNALETTE L. RAMOS v. SUSAN A. LIMETA PER CURIAM
Grave misconduct is a serious transgression of some established and definite rule of action (such as unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer or employee) that tends to threaten the very existence of the system of administration of justice an official or employee serves.[11] It may manifest itself in corruption, or in other similar acts, done with the clear intent to violate the law or in flagrant disregard of established rules.[12] It is considered as a grave offense under the Civil Service Law,[13] with the corresponding penalty of dismissal from the service, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service.
	AM No. P-04-1830 2009-06-04	OCA v. SYLVIA CANQUE PER CURIAM
Grave misconduct is a malevolent transgression of some established and definite rule of action - more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer or employee - which threatens the very existence of the system of administration of justice.[8] It manifests itself in corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules.[9] It is considered as a grave offense under the Civil Service Law[10] with the corresponding penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service.
	GR No. 167278 2008-02-27	ATTY. GIL A. VALERA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PUNO, CJ.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.[16] The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or disregard of established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence.[17]
	GR NO. 159314 2006-06-26	EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA QUISUMBING, J.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. And when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.[16] We are convinced that the decision of the Ombudsman finding petitioner administratively liable for grave misconduct is based on substantial evidence. When there is substantial evidence in support of the Ombudsman's decision, that decision will not be overturned.[17]
	GR NO. 154521 2005-09-30	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. JULIANA E. LEDESMA CARPIO, J.
Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[22] 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.[23] Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. A person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.