Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule where a
finding of guilt would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by
substantial evidence that the respondent committed acts stated in the complaint.
Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard of substantial
evidence is met when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is
responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence is not
overwhelming or even preponderant,42 and respondent’s participation therein
renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. 43 redarclaw
Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task
expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference. 44 It is
censurable under Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service as a less grave offense and is punishable by suspension from office
for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and
dismissal for the second offense. Respondent, however, found petitioner guilty of
Grave Misconduct and imposed upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service
with all the attendant accessory penalties. To be classified as grave, one’s
misconduct must show the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or
flagrant disregard of established rules. 45 redarclaw
42
Menor v. Guillermo, 595 Phil. 10, 15 (2008). Citations omitted.
43
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Mayordomo, G.R. No. 191218,
May 31, 2011, 649 SCRA 667, 680. Citations omitted.
44
Villanueva-Fabella v. Lee, 464 Phil. 548, 570-571 (2004).
45
Office of the Ombudsman v. Miedes, Sr., 570 Phil. 464, 473 (2008),
citing Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 528 Phil. 432, 442 (2006) and Civil Service
Commission v. Lucas, 361 Phil. 486, 490-491 (1999).
46
TSN (Joseph Sta. Romana), October 30, 2007, pp. 7-9; rollo, pp. 144-146.
The following facts were indubitably proven in the case at bar – giving us such
reasonable ground to believe that petitioner is guilty of the acts alleged in the
Formal Charge under GSIS Adm Case No. 07-010 dated July 26, 2007, viz.: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Jurisprudence is replete with cases stating that misconduct shall be considered
grave only in cases where the elements of “corruption, willful intent to violate
the law or to disregard established rules [are proven] by substantial
evidence.”49 The case of Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v.
Mayordomo is instructive, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
To warrant dismissal from the 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. Corruption as
an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or
employee who unlawfully or wrongfully uses her station or character to
procure some benefit for herself or for another, at the expense of the
rights of others. Nonetheless, “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. Grave misconduct
necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct.” 50
This brings us to the charge of grave misconduct. The Supreme Court, in the case
of Vertudes v. Buenaflor and Bureau of Immigration,9 ruled as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of
a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. 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. 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 rights of others. 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.
It must be emphasized that the quantum of evidence required in administrative
proceedings is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally
reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.
Said funds belong to its members who are government employees. Consequently,
all government employees were prejudiced by the wrongdoing of Manalo.
No substantial evidence was adduced to support the elements of corruption, or
clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules, that must
be present to characterize the misconduct as grave.
It is worthy to emphasize at this point that when a public officer or employee is
disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of that officer or employee, but
the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public’s faith and
confidence in the government.
Petitioner is reminded that ‘the Constitution stresses that a public office is a public
trust and public officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives. These constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-
repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments.
They should be taken as working standards by all in the public service.’
the case lies in a better understanding of respondent’s responsibilities and tasks as
set forth in the Additional Notes
Thus, it appears that respondent,
. In other words, it was respondent’s task to determine the completeness and
authenticity of the source documents submitted to him, before he can create a
policy record which the GSIS member-applicant shall use to secure ELA, SOS,
and/or ESL.
[28]
Misconduct, in the administrative sense, is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action. It is an
intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government
[29]
official. Misconduct is considered grave if accompanied by corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant
[30]
disregard of established rules, which must all be supported by substantial evidence. If the misconduct does not
involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave, the person charged may only be held liable
[31]
for simple misconduct.
Moreover, in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence
[32]
or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard of
substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that a person is responsible for the
[33]
misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.
showing that they are guilty of any intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of
behavior.
The publication in her social media account had an intention to injure the
reputation of Ms. Platon because instead of texting or calling her, Ms. Lozada
opted instead to have it published albeit prematurely.
The records clearly shows that Ms. Lozada committed the acts complained of ie. Posting
blablabla
After a careful review of the record, the acts of Ms. Lozada constitutes grave misconduct.
Substantial Evidence was adduced to support the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate
the law or flagrant disregard of established rule to characterized the misconduct as grave.
The act of posting proves the element of flagrant disregard of the established rule to constitute
grave misconduct.
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 employees propensity to ignore
the rules as clearly manifested by his or her actions.
, he is presumed to know all existing policies, guidelines and procedures in carrying out the agencys
mandate in the area.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial
evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.15 The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe
that a person is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be
overwhelming or even preponderant. 16
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
no link between the respondent's acts and her official functions as a\
. In Manuel v. Judge Calimag, Jr.,21 the Court explained that:
x x x 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."
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WAS ESSENTIALLY
CONNECTED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES.
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. In grave 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.16
\ Did Ganzon’s act of aiming his loaded firearm at Arlos and menacing him with it constitute grave
misconduct in the context of the foregoing provisions?
Undoubtedly it did. Drawing and pointing the loaded firearm at Arlos evinced the intent on the part of
Ganzon to cause some harm upon Arlos on whom he vented his resentment of the poor performance
rating he received.
Nonetheless, Ganzon projects that his acts did not constitute grave misconduct in the contemplation of
the law because they were not committed in relation to his performance of duty; and that the Christmas
party was not an official function as to render any untoward incident committed on the occasion thereof a
misconduct. He posits that his offense could exist without the office; and that the holding of the office was
not a constituent element of his offense.
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.
Ganzon’s acts met the criteria in Largo v. Court of Appeals . To begin with, he was not acting in a private
capacity when he acted menacingly towards Arlos, it being clear that his resentment of his poor
performance rating, surely a matter that concerned his performance of duty, motivated his confronting
the latter. Moreover, it did not matter that his acts were committed outside of office hours, because they
were intimately connected to the office of the offender. An act is intimately connected to the office of the
offender if it is committed as the consequence of the performance of the office by him, or if it cannot exist
without the office even if public office is not an element of the crime in the abstract.
under Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan and its progenitor rulings, an act that is the consequence of the
discharge of the employee’s official functions or the performance of his duties, or that is relevant to his
office or to the discharge of his official functions is justly considered as service-related.
Even if the affair occurred outside of the regular work hours, Ganzon’s menacing attitude towards Arlos
still had no excuse, particularly as Arlos was his superior in the office hierarchy.
(Code of Conduct Standards for Public Officials and Employees) fittingly provides:
(c) Justness and sincerity. – Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times.
They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor
and the underprivileged. They 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. (Emphasis supplied)
It is almost superfluous to remind all public employees like Ganzon that the law of good manners and
proper decorum was law during as well as outside office hours.
G.R. No. 174321 October 22, 2013
ROLANDO GANZON, Petitioner,
vs.
FERNANDO ARLOS, Respondent.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
Both respondents argued that their sexual acts do not fall under
scandalous circumstances. Hence, they cannot be held liable for
concubinage. This argument of both respondents is correct if the basis of
finding their guilt is proof beyond reasonable doubt which is the quantum of
proof required in criminal cases. However, it must be noted that this is an
administrative proceeding where the quantum of proof required for finding
their guilt is only substantial evidence.
It is elementary that in an administrative proceedings, the quantum of
proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, that amount
of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion (Avancena v. Liwanag, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1383, July 17,
2003, 406 SCRA 300).
Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a
mere scintilla of evidence. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there
is reasonable ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the respondent is
responsible for the misconduct complained of. It need not be overwhelming or
preponderant, as is required in an ordinary civil case, or evidence beyond reasonable
doubt, as is required in criminal cases, but the evidence must be enough for a
reasonable mind to support a conclusion. <<
(G.R. Nos. 172532 172544–45 / November 20, 2013)
>> 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. <<
(AM No. P-11–3019 — Supreme Court of the Philippines / March 2012)
This argument is correct if the basis of finding her guilt is proof beyond reasonable doubt which
is the quantum of proof required in criminal cases. However, it
It is merely the duty of this Office to determine whether or not there is a prima facie case to file
an administrative case of Grave Offense. However, it is still the decision of Ms. Platon and not
of this Office whether or not to file the criminal charge against her in the regular court.
The investigation was to determine whether or not there is a probable cause to file for
a possible administrative, civil or criminal case in the proper court.
Both involves a similar facts but each require a different quantum of evidence.
As an Executive Assistant V of the Office of the Secretary, Ms. Lozada has the following
functions:
1. Performs a variety of technical and non-technical jobs to assist the Secretary in carrying
out basic functions of the Office;
2. Upon instructions of the Secretary, executes orders, rules, regulations and policies of the
Office.
3. Prepares Memoranda on matters being considered by executive bodies and actions to
implement decisions reached;
4. Assigns and gives instructions on work methods and procedures to subordinate personnel
and reviews finished works;
5. Performs such other functions as may be assigned from time to time.
The Supreme Court stressed in Largo v. Court of Appeals 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
Ms. Lozada’s act met the criteria in the above-mentioned case. She
was not acting in a private capacity when she acted adverse towards Ms. Platon, it being clear
as her frustration on the act of Ms. Platon of asking her regarding a work-related topic on a
non-working day.
The conversation was clearly intimately connected to the Office of Ms. Lozada.
\ An act is intimately connected to the office of the offender if it is committed as the
consequence of the performance of the office by him, or if it cannot exist without the office
even if public office is not an element of the crime in the abstract. (Ganzon vs. Arlos G.R No.
174321, October 22, 2013.
\ Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan and its progenitor rulings, an
The conversation was clearly intimately connected to the Office of Ms. Lozada.
1. Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
committed as follows:
a) By merely posting the photo with remarks against a
fellow PCOO employee subjects the PCOO to scrutiny
that would greatly affect the confidence of the Public to
the Office.
We respectfully submit that the Ms. Lozada must also be held liable for Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of Service.
The complained act of Ms. Lozada constitute the administrative offense of conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service, which need not be related or connected to the public
officer's official functions. 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 PCOO have been subject to scrutiny due to social media postings. The act of Ms. Lozada of
posting in her social media account regarding the alleged “poor etiquette” of a fellow PCOO
employee will affect the
We cannot afford to be scrutinize even more for the
run contrary to the policy of promoting a high standard of ethics in the public service.
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." By her actuations, Ms. Lozada failed to live up to such standard.
Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is also considered as a grave offense
under Rule 10, Section 50 (B)(10) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(2017 RACCS) punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the
first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense.
It is elementary that in an administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required for a
finding of guilt is only substantial evidence.
A true public servant must act in such capacity whether during office hours or
not.
The PCOO have been subject to scrutiny due to social media postings. The act of Ms. Lozada of
posting in her social media account regarding the alleged “poor etiquette” of a fellow PCOO
employee will affect the
We cannot afford to be scrutinize even more for the
run contrary to the policy of promoting a high standard of ethics in the public service.
