Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

Grave misconduct; extortion - A.M. No.

P-11-
3019
A.M. No. P-11-3019

"x x x.

The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service 27 govern the
conduct of disciplinary and non-disciplinary proceedings in administrative
cases. In Section 3, it provides that, “Administrative investigations shall be
conducted without necessarily adhering strictly to the technical rules of
procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings.”

In Office of the Court Administrator v. Canque,28 the Court held:


The essence of due process is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be
heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of his defense. Technical rules
of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied to administrative proceedings. Thus,
administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial
sense. A formal or trial-type hearing is not required.

The weight of evidence required in administrative investigations is substantial


evidence. In Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, substantial evidence is
defined:

In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed


established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable man might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Consequently, in the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable


doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, then
by preponderance of evidence, and lastly by substantial evidence, in that
order.29

For these reasons, only substantial evidence is required to find Malunao guilty
of the administrative offense. In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, substantial
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable man might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, is the lowest standard of proof
provided under the Rules of Court. In assessing whether there is substantial
evidence in administrative investigations such as this case, the Court is not
bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence.
Dela Cruz, in her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 8 May 2008, claimed that
Malunao tried to extort money from her in exchange for a favorable resolution
in the case pending before Judge Flor in Branch 28. In the entrapment operation
conducted by the NBI, Malunao was arrested when she received ₱15,000.00
from Dela Cruz.
A criminal complaint for robbery with extortion was filed against Malunao with
attached supporting documents such as the Complaint Sheet, Sinumpaang
Salaysay of Dela Cruz, Affidavit of Arrest, Booking Sheet and Arrest Report,
photocopy of the marked money, photos of Malunao entering the house of Dela
Cruz and while in the house of Dela Cruz, and photos of the contents of her bag
after Malunao received the marked money. As a consequence of this case,
Judge Flor filed a criminal complaint against Malunao for violation of Section
3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) and Section
7(d) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees (R.A. No. 6713), which complaint was referred to this Court by the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and now docketed as A.M. No. P-09-2732.

Malunao, on the other hand, claims that she was framed by Dela Cruz, and that
she received ₱15,000.00 as a loan. Malunao, however, did not impute any ill-
motive to Dela Cruz on why the latter would frame her.

Malunao has three administrative cases filed against her, aside from the present
case, all alleging the same conduct of extortion and solicitation. In Estabillo v.
Malunao, docketed as A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2974-P, Estabillo, in her Affidavit,
claims that Malunao, in July 2006, asked money from her in exchange for a
favorable decision in a case pending before Judge Flor of Branch 28 where
Estabillo was a defendant. Estabillo gave Malunao ₱10,000.00. On November
2007, Estabillo learned that an administrative case was filed against Malunao
due to her practice of collecting money from litigants. After Estabillo
confronted Malunao, Malunao promised to return the ₱10,000.00. However, the
amount remains unpaid, so Estabillo filed the complaint against Malunao in
A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 08-2974-P.

In Office of the Court Administrator v. Malunao, docketed as A.M. No. P-07-


2324, Malunao was once again being investigated for alleged extortions and
solicitations from litigants, which resulted in Malunao’s preventive suspension
in the Court’s Resolution dated 18 June 2007.

The third case, Judge Fernando F. Flor v. Malunao (A.M. No. P-09-2732), is
an offshoot of this case. Judge Flor of Branch 28 where Malunao is employed
as Clerk III filed an administrative complaint against Malunao for soliciting
money from Dela Cruz with the promise of a favorable decision from Judge
Flor.

To date, none of these three administrative cases against Malunao has finally
been resolved by this Court.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,


more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public
officer.30 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.31 Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an
official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his position or
office to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to
duty and the rights of others.32 Section 2, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for
Court Personnel states: “Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift,
favor or benefit based on any or explicit understanding that such gift, favor or
benefit shall influence their official actions.”

In Rule IV, Section 52(A)(11) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in


the Civil Service, soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift,
gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value which in the
course of an employee’s official duties may affect the functions of his office
merits the penalty of dismissal for the first offense. Grave misconduct under
Section 52(A)(3) of Rule IV is also punishable by dismissal for the first
offense.

In the present case, Malunao solicited ₱35,000.00 and received ₱15,000.00 as


first installment from Dela Cruz in exchange for a favorable decision in Civil
Case No. 6875 entitled Alay Kapwa Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. v. Engr.
Nestor A. Gonzaga and Ernesto Roxas (E.R. Agro-Trading) pending before
Judge Flor in Branch 28. Malunao was arrested in an entrapment operation
upon receipt of the first installment of ₱15,000.00.

At the time of the solicitation, Malunao was already preventively suspended as


Clerk III in Branch 28 by virtue of the Court’s Resolution dated 18 June 2007
in another case, Office of the Court Administrator v. Malunao (A.M. No. P-07-
2324), due to allegations of the same conduct of extortion and solicitation. As a
consequence of such solicitation from Dela Cruz, Judge Flor also filed a case
against Malunao docketed as A.M. No. P-09-2732. In addition, Malunao has a
pending administrative case in Estabillo v. Malunao docketed as A.M. OCA IPI
No. 08-2974-P, where Estabillo, a defendant in a criminal case pending before
Branch 28, alleges that Malunao solicited and received ₱10,000.00 in exchange
for a favorable decision.

In the present case, Malunao clearly used her position as Clerk III in Branch 28
to solicit money from Dela Cruz with the promise of a favorable decision. This
violation of Section 2, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
constitutes the offense of grave misconduct meriting the penalty of dismissal.
Dela Cruz’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, the joint affidavit of arrest executed by the
NBI agents, the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, photocopy of the marked
money, the Complaint Sheet, and the photographs of Malunao entering Dela
Cruz’s house, and the contents of Malunao’s bag after receipt of the money, all
prove by subsantial evidence the guilt of Malunao for the offense of grave
misconduct.

What is more alarming and disconcerting is the fact that Malunao has continued
to solicit money from litigants, even after she had been preventively suspended
as Clerk III. Malunao has the propensity to abuse a position of public service
and is not fit to remain in the civil service.
x x x."

Some jurisprudence on
administrative cases involving
grave misconduct
By
Toni Umali, Esq.
-
February 22, 2015

Share on Facebook

Tweet on Twitter



OUR last column discussing a
hypothetical case on dishonesty generated several comments and requests
for us to discuss other offenses that may have been committed by the
“respondent” in said hypothetical case.

So our hypothetical case is about a government official supposedly signing a


document “without authority” and/or “without any legal basis” as the
attached documents are either inexistent or falsified. The facts of the case
also indicate that there is no evidence to establish the government official’s
intent to lie, cheat, defraud or steal (and no evidence to prove that it is the
respondent, who falsified the attached documents or the respondent knows
that the said documents are falsified).

In the previous column, we mentioned that there is no dishonesty. However,


for this column, we wish to add that there may be some other offenses
committed (though not dishonesty) depending on the facts of the case.

For example, the additional facts of the case is that the respondent
government official (let’s call him “Mr. X”) under the aforementioned
situation knows that the authority to sign that document lies with the head
of his division and that he is just claiming that it is okay for him to sign such
document because the head is “absent or is on leave.” Mr. X’s colleagues
said, “he should wait for the head of the office to sign the document,” but he
insisted since “the same document shall be reviewed by some other higher
authorities in the region anyway and so it is now up to such higher
authorities to disallow the act he has done.”

What happened now in our hypothetical case is that the “higher authorities
in the region” approved the document signed by Mr. X, and then authorized
some payments to some third persons based on that document, since the
“higher authorities in the region” just approved the document signed by Mr.
X without even reviewing the document that he is approving. (Please take
note that Mr. X is not even designated as the “officer in charge” of his
division.)
Without discussing the liability of the “higher authorities in the region,” Mr.
X may be held liable here for Grave Misconduct.

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. [Please see Civil
Service Commission v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521, September 30, 2005,
citing BIR v. Organo, 424 SCRA 9 and CSC v. Lucas, 361 Phil. 486 (1999)]

In this case, Mr. X knew that he has no authority to sign. Mere absence of
the head of the office does not necessarily give Mr. X the authority to sign
the documents that may only be validly signed by the head of such office.
Mr. X’s contention—that “the same document shall be reviewed by some
other higher authorities in the region anyway and so it is now up to such
higher authorities to disallow the act he has done”—is totally misplaced and
has no legal leg to stand on.

Thus, the aforementioned circumstances should demonstrate Mr. X’s willful


intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules making him liable
for grave misconduct.

As previously stated, under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the


Civil Service (RRACCS) promulgated in November 8, 2011, by the CSC,
administrative offenses are classified into grave, less grave or light,
depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government
service.

Thus, under Section 46, Rule 10 of RRACCS, grave misconduct is a grave


offense punishable by dismissal from the service. “Simple misconduct” is a
less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six
months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.

Misconduct may be considered simple if the additional elements of


corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules
are not present. (Please see also Samson v. Restrivera, G.R. No. 178454,
March 28, 2011)

This column should not be taken as a legal advice applicable to any


particular case as each case is unique and should be construed in light of
the attending circumstances surrounding such particular case.
LEGAL NOTE 0023: WHAT IS
MISCONDUCT? WHAT IS GRAVE
MISCONDUCT? HOW DO YOU PROVE
MISCONDUCT AND GRAVE
MISCONDUCT? WHAT IS THE
PENALTY FOR SIMPLE MISCONDUCT?
WHAT IS CORRUPTION? WHAT IS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?
Filed under: LEGAL NOTES — 27 Comments
February 7, 2011
LEGAL NOTE 0023: WHAT IS MISCONDUCT AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT? HOW DO YOU
PROVE MISCONDUCT AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT?

SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. CLAUDIO M. LOPEZ (A.M. NO. P-
10-2788, 18 JANUARY 2011, CORONA, C.J. ) SUBJECT: QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
REQUIRED IN ADMIN CASES; DEFINITION OF MISCONDUCT AND WHEN IT IS GRAVE.
(BRIEF TITLE: OCA VS. LOPEZ).

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

LOPEZ, A COURT PROCESS SERVER WAS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA.


ADMIN CHARGE WAS FILED AGAINST HIM. SC RULED HE COMMITTED GRAVE
MISCONDUCT.

WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?

The Court defines misconduct as “a transgression of some established and definite


rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer.” 8

WHAT IS GRAVE MISCONDUCT?


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. 9

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 a
charge of grave misconduct.

WHAT IS CORRUPTION?

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.

MUST GRAVE MISCONDUCT BE A CRIME?

No.

An act need not be tantamount to a crime for it to be considered as grave misconduct


as in fact, crimes involving moral turpitude are treated as a separate ground for
dismissal under the Administrative Code. 10

We agree with the findings and recommendation of both the Investigating Judge and
the OCA that respondent committed grave misconduct which, under Section 52 (A)(3),
Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, is a grave offense punishable
by dismissal even for the first offense.

WHAT IS REQUIRED TO PROVE GRAVE MISCONDUCT.

Only substantial evidence is required.

As correctly pointed out by the Investigating Judge, to sustain a finding of


administrative culpability, only substantial evidence is required. The present case is
an administrative case, not a criminal case, against respondent. Therefore, the
quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence.
WHAT IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind


might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Evidence to support a conviction
in a criminal case is not necessary, and the dismissal of the criminal case against the
respondent in an administrative case is not a ground for the dismissal of the
administrative case. We emphasize the well-settled rule that a criminal case is
different from an administrative case and each must be disposed of according to the
facts and the law applicable to each case. 7
=============================================
=============================================
=============================================
ADDITIONAL NOTES (OCTOBER 2011 CASE):

SOURCE: MONICO K. IMPERIAL, JR. VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM


(G.R. NO. 191224, 04 OCTOBER 2011, BRION, J.) SUBJECTS: GRAVE MISCONDUCT;
SIMPLE MISCONDUCT, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; PENALTIES FOR MISCONDUCT;
EXAMPLES OF CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE LAW AND PROCEDURES (BRIEF TITLE: IMPERIAL
VS. GSIS)

PETITIONER WAS ADJUDGED BY GSIS, SSC AND CA AS GUILTY OF GRAVE


MISCONDUCT? WAS THIS RULING CORRECT?

NO. 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.

PETITIONER ONLY COMMITTED SERIOUS LAPSE OF JUDGMENT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD


HIM LIABLE FOR SIMPLE MISCONDUCT.

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.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

BUT PETITIONER COMMITTED SUCH OFFENSE TWICE ALREADY. CAN HE BE NOT


CONSIDERED TO HAVE COMMITTED “FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF ESTABLISHED RULE”?

NO. THERE MUST BE DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF THE RULES. 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.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?

AN INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING OR A DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF A RULE OF LAW OR


STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHEN IS MISCONDUCT GRAVE?

A MISCONDUCT IS GRAVE WHERE THE ELEMENTS OF CORRUPTION, CLEAR INTENT TO


VIOLATE THE LAW OR FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF ESTABLISHED RULE ARE PRESENT. [1]
[21]
OTHERWISE, A MISCONDUCT IS ONLY SIMPLE.
Misconduct has a legal and uniform definition. Misconduct has been defined as an
intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of
behavior, especially by a government official. [2][20] A misconduct is grave where the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of
established rule are present. [3][21] Otherwise, a misconduct is only simple.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

GIVE EXAMPLES OF JURISPRUDENCE WHEN THERE HAS BEEN OPEN DEFIANCE OF A


CUSTOMARY RULE.

AS FOLLOWS:

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; [4][23] in the repeated voluntary disregard of established
rules in the procurement of supplies; [5][24] in the practice of illegally collecting fees
more than what is prescribed for delayed registration of marriages; [6][25] when several
violations or disregard of regulations governing the collection of government funds
were committed; [7][26] and when the employee arrogated unto herself responsibilities
that were clearly beyond her given duties. [8][27] The common denominator in these
cases was the employee’s propensity to ignore the rules as clearly manifested by his
or her actions.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR SIMPLE MISCONDUCT?

SUSPENSION FOR ONE MONTH AND ONE DAY TO SIX MONTHS FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE
AND DISMISSAL FOR THE SECOND OFFENSE.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

BUT PETITIONER HAS COMMITTED THE OFFENSE TWICE. WHY SHOULD HIS PENALTY BE
NOT DISMISSAL?
BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROPORTIONATE TO THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF HIS
TRANSGRESSION.

The Revised Uniform Rules of the Civil Service (Civil Service Rules) classifies simple
misconduct as a less grave offense. Under Section 52(B) (2), Rule IV of the Civil
Service Rules, the commission of simple misconduct is penalized by suspension for
one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal
from the service for the second offense. While records show that this is not the
petitioner’s first offense as he was previously suspended for one (1) year for neglect
of duty, we believe that his dismissal would be disproportionate to the nature and
effect of the transgression he committed as the GSIS did not suffer any prejudice
through the loans he extended; these loans were for GSIS employees and were duly
paid for. Thus, for his second simple misconduct, we impose on the petitioner the
penalty of suspension from the lapse of his preventive suspension by GSIS up to the
finality of this Decision. [9][28]
==================
Share this:

Potrebbero piacerti anche