This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-08-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| When, as in this case, the law is clear, respondent owes it to himself and to the public he serves to adhere to its dictates. The failure to do so exposes the wrongdoer to administrative sanctions. When the inefficiency of an officer of the court springs from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law or a principle in the discharge of his duties, he is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title he holds or is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith or with grave abuse of authority.[51] Section 52(B)(2)[52] of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[53] classifies simple misconduct as a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Having been in the service for more than 26 years,[54] respondent cannot wrongly interpret basic rules without appearing grossly incompetent or having acted in bad faith. | |||||