Grave misconduct jurisprudence:

Grave misconduct, of which Tanfelix has been charged, consists in a government official's
deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. It is regarded as grave when the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules
are present. 1 In particular, corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the
official's unlawful and wrongful use of his station or character [reputation] 2 to procure some
benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. 3 Rigging by
a public official at a bidding in the organization where he belongs is a specie of
corruption.||| (National Power Corp. v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 152093, [January 24,
2012], 679 PHIL 487-490)

There is no evidence that petitioner profited pecuniarily from the act imputed upon her. xxx

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 (In Re:
Impeachment of Horrilleno, 43 Phil. 212 [1922]). None of these elements exists in petitioner's
case.

||| (Landrito v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. Nos. 104304-05, [June 22, 1993])

The grounds for removal of a judge of first instance under Philippine law are two: (1) Serious
misconduct and (2) inefficiency. The latter ground is not involved in these proceedings. As to
the first, the law provides that "sufficient cause" must exist in the judgment of the Supreme
Court involving "serious misconduct." The adjective is "serious;" that is, important, weighty,
momentous, and not trifling. The noun is "misconduct;" that is, a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence
by the public officer. The word "misconduct" implies a wrongful intention and not a mere
error of judgment. For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing
that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law,
or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. (Lawlor vs. People [1874], 74 ii., 228;
Citizens' Insurance co. vs. Marsh [1861], 9 Neb., 471; Smith vs. Cutler [1833], 10 Wend. [N.Y.],
590; U.S. vs. Warner [1848], 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16643; In re Tighe [1904], 89 N.Y. Supp., 719.)

Xxx

Serious misconduct on the part of Judge Horrilleno has not here been proved by a
preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. The most that can be
said for the charges made by complainant, would be that the judge may have been careless in
the performance of his judicial duties. There is extant absolutely no proof that the respondent
judge has acted partially, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively. On the
contrary the testimony of the most prominent citizens of Mindanao and Sulu including the
Sultan of Sulu, Senator Hadji Butu, Datu Ussman, Governor Charles M. Moore, and practically
the entire bar of Zamboanga, Jolo, and Davao is unanimously in favor of the excellent
reputation of Judge Horrilleno. Sufficient of the cases tried by Judge Horilleno have been
elevated to this court for all of us to have become conscious of the careful performance of his
onerous and responsible duties, and familiar with the excellent quality of his judicial output. We
would be remiss ourselves if, knowing of the publicity which has been given to the attacks on
the good name of Judge Horrilleno, we should not as publicly announce our faith in his judicial
character. Judge Horrilleno justly merits and is granted complete exoneration.||| (In re:
Horrilleno, No G.R. Number Supplied, [March 20, 1922])

In Arcenio v. Pagorogon, the Court defined misconduct as "a transgression of some established
and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer." 20 As differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct,
in grave misconduct "the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant
disregard of established rule, must be manifest.

Xxx

Because of her complicity in the transgression of the cited BIR regulation as well as her gross
negligence, respondent is administratively liable for misconduct. The sketchiness of the
uncontroverted facts, however, fails to sufficiently establish flagrancy in her act. Hence, she is
liable only for simple, not gross, misconduct.||| (Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Organo, G.R.
No. 149549, [February 26, 2004], 468 PHIL 111-120)

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 who unlawfully uses his
station or character to procure some benefit for himself.||| (Geronca v. Magalona, A.M. No. P-
07-2398 (Resolution), [February 13, 2008], 568 PHIL 564-571)

Otherwise stated, the misconduct is grave if it involves the additional element of

corruption. 12 Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists of 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.||| (Civil
Service Commission v. Nierras, G.R. No. 165121, [February 14, 2008], 569 PHIL 37-44)

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.

The law does not tolerate misconduct by a civil servant. It should be sanctioned. Public service
is a public trust and whoever breaks that trust is subject to penalty. The issue, however,
concerns the appropriate penalty. Dismissal with forfeiture of benefits, in our view, should not
be imposed for all infractions involving misconduct, particularly when it is a first offense as in
the instant case. 18 To conclude, given the circumstances of this case and of the precedents
cited, we are in agreement that suspension of respondent for six (6) months without pay is
sufficient penalty.||| (Civil Service Commission v. Nierras, G.R. No. 165121, [February 14,
2008], 569 PHIL 37-44)

A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or
flagrant disregard of established rule are present. 21 Otherwise, a misconduct is only simple.

No doubt exists in our mind that the petitioner committed misconduct in this case. The records
clearly show that the petitioner committed the acts complained of, i.e., he approved the
requests for salary loans of eight GSIS Naga Field Office employees who lacked the necessary
contribution requirements under PPG No. 153-99. After a careful review of the records,
however, we disagree with the findings of the GSIS, the CSC and the CA that the petitioner's
acts constituted grave misconduct. While we accord great respect to the factual findings of
administrative agencies that misconduct was committed, we cannot characterize the offense
committed as grave. No substantial evidence was adduced to support the elements of
"corruption," "clear intent to violate the law" or "flagrant disregard of established rule" that
must be present to characterize the misconduct as grave.

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.

Under the circumstances of the present case, we do not see the type of open defiance and
disregard of GSIS rules that the CSC observed. In fact, the CSC's findings on the petitioner's
actions prior to the approval of the loans negate the presence of any intent on the petitioner's
part to deliberately defy the policy of the GSIS. First, GSIS branch managers have been granted
in the past the authority to approve loan applications beyond the prescribed requirements of
GSIS; second, there was a customary lenient practice in the approval of loans exercised by
some branch managers notwithstanding the existing GSIS policy; and third, the petitioner first
sought the approval of his immediate supervisor before acting on the loan applications. These
circumstances run counter to the characteristic flagrant disregard of the rules
that grave misconduct requires.

Thus, the petitioner's liability under the given facts only involves simple misconduct. As Branch
Manager of the GSIS Naga Field Office, he is presumed to know all existing policies, guidelines
and procedures in carrying out the agency's mandate in the area. By approving the loan
applications of eight GSIS Naga Field Office employees who did not fully meet the required
qualifications, he committed a serious lapse of judgment sufficient to hold him liable for simple
misconduct.

||| (Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 191224, [October 4, 2011],
674 PHIL 286-304)

Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." 9The 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. 10 Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 11||| (Roque v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
179245, [July 23, 2008], 581 PHIL 623-639)

The misconduct is considered to be grave if it involves additional elements such as corruption or

willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proven by
substantial evidence; otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. 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. In other words, in grave misconduct, the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established
rule must be evident.||| (Chavez v. Garcia, G.R. No. 195054, [April 4, 2016])

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behaviour or gross negligence by a public officer." 21It is qualified as grave when it is
attended with corruption or wilful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules —
otherwise the misconduct is only simple. 22 In addition, in order that an action be deemed a
"misconduct" it must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his
official duties amounting either to maladministration or wilful, intentional neglect or failure to
discharge the duties of the office.||| (Recto-Sambajon v. Public Attorney's Office, G.R. No.
197745, [September 6, 2017])
Unlike Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service need not be
related to or connected with the public officer's official function as it suffices that the act in
question tarnishes the image and integrity of his/her public office. Thus, it is broader as it
encompasses all transgressions which may put a particular public office in a bad
light. ||| (Recto-Sambajon v. Public Attorney's Office, G.R. No. 197745, [September 6, 2017])

Charge – gross misconduct through conduct prejudicial

Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service may or may not be characterized
by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules.

Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description of what specific acts
constitute the grave offense of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service,
although this Court has considered the following acts or omissions, among others, as such:
misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without
prior notice, failure to safe keep public records and property, making false entries in public
documents and falsification of court orders.

||| (Espiña v. Cerujano, G.R. No. 149377, [March 28, 2008], 573 PHIL 254-266)

To hold the respondents liable for grave misconduct, the quantum of evidence to support an
administrative ruling must be satisfied. In administrative cases, substantial evidence is required
to support any findings. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement is satisfied where there is
reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the act or omission complained of,
even if the evidence might not be overwhelming.||| (Office of the Ombudsman v. Agustino,
G.R. No. 204171, [April 15, 2015])

Records reveal that the element of intent to commit a wrong required under both the
administrative offenses of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct 39 are lacking to warrant
petitioner's dismissal from service.||| (Daplas v. Department of Finance, G.R. No. 221153, [April
17, 2017])
On the other hand, misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a
rule of law or standard of behavior. 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. Ingrave 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 manifest. 41 Without any of these
elements, the transgression of an established rule is properly characterized as simple
misconduct only. 42 Most importantly, without a nexus between the act complained of
and the discharge of duty, the charge of grave misconduct shall necessarily fail.||| (Daplas
v. Department of Finance, G.R. No. 221153, [April 17, 2017])
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. To warrant dismissal from service,
the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The
misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also
have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official
duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to
discharge the duties of the office. In order to differentiate gross misconduct from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of
established rule, must be manifest in the former. 32

In this case, records are bereft of any showing that respondents wrongfully intended to
transgress some established and definite rule of action which is attended by corruption, clear
intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of the rules when they, along with the other
members of the MAB of the Municipality of Kawit, Cavite, approved MAB-Resolution No. 3-97
causing the re-appraisal and revaluation of the subject lands. On the contrary and as correctly
pointed out by the CA, the passage of MAB-Resolution No. 3-97 was merely done so that lands
within the municipality which have the same attributes — those which are around "30 meters
away from [the national] road, and classified as agricultural being fishpond or marsh land with
similar desirability, neighborhood and important need for the acquisition of a real property" —
will be assessed uniformly, pursuant to Resolution No. 10-96 of the Cavite Provincial
Assessment Board. 33 As there are ample bases for the passage of MAB-Resolution No. 3-97,
the Court finds that the evidence on record supports the conclusion that respondents did not
commit Grave Misconduct, much less Simple Misconduct. Perforce, the CA correctly exonerated
them from administrative liability. cDCSTA

||| (Office of the Ombudsman v. De Zosa, G.R. No. 205433, [January 21, 2015])\

Grave misconduct is defined as the transgression of some established and definite

rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer coupled with the elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to
disregard established rules. 25Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in
the official or employee's act of unlawfully or wrongfully using his position to gain benefit for
one's self. 26 Lastly, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service deals with a
demeanor of a public officer which "tarnished the image and integrity of his/her public
office."||| (Fajardo v. Corral, G.R. No. 212641, [July 5, 2017])

Misconduct has a legal and uniform definition. It is defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a

deliberate violation of a rule of law or standyard of behavior, especially by a government
official. A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law
or flagrant disregard of established rule are present.||| (Eijansantos v. Special Presidential Task
Force 156, G.R. No. 203696, [June 2, 2014], 734 PHIL 748-765)