J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

LEGAL NOTE 0024: WHAT IS THE ETHICAL STANDARD EXPECTED OF COURT EMPLOYEES.

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

WHAT IS THE ETHICAL STANDARD EXPECTED OF COURT EMPLOYEES?

GREATER MORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS AND UPRIGHTNESS.

Once again, we stress that court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants in an office dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in accordance with the law and court regulations. No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office in the judiciary. Court employees should be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty to maintain the people’s respect and faith in the judiciary. They should avoid any act or conduct that would diminish public trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those connected with dispensing justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility.¹¹

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]

==================

LEGAL NOTE 0022: HOW DO YOU PROVE ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.

SOURCE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO AND MELCHOR AUSTRIACO Y AGUILA (G.R. NO. 185163, 17 JANUARY 2011, VELASCO, JR., J.) SUBJECTS: ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS; ELEMENTS AND HOW PROVEN. (SUBJECT: PEOPLE VS. AURE ET AL)

x—————————————————————-x

HOW DO YOU PROVE ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS?

THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS ARE:

(1) THE ACCUSED IS IN POSSESSION OF AN ITEM OR OBJECT WHICH IS IDENTIFIED TO BE A PROHIBITED DRUG;

(2) SUCH POSSESSION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW; AND

(3) THE ACCUSED FREELY AND CONSCIOUSLY POSSESSED THE SAID DRUG.^[1][40] 

Ruled the Supreme Court in the above-stated case:

As regards the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 against accused-appellant Aure, We also find that the elements of the offense have been established by the evidence of the prosecution.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.^[2][40]

In the instant case, a brown bag was found inside the car of accused-appellant Aure.  It yielded a plastic sachet of shabu weighing 86.23 grams wrapped in red wrapping paper, small plastic sachets, and an improvised plastic tooter.  Considering that during the sale to Bilason, it was from the same bag that accused-appellant Austriaco took the sachet of shabu, per order of accused-appellant Aure, the owner-possessor of said bag and its contents is no other than accused-appellant Aure, who has not shown any proof that he was duly authorized by law to possess them or any evidence to rebut his animus possidendi of the shabu found in his car during the buy-bust operation.

Defense of denial is inherently weak

The sachet containing the dangerous drug was positively identified by MADAC operative Bilason during the trial as the very sachet with white crystalline substance sold and delivered to him by accused-appellants. Thus, accused-appellants’ denial is self-serving and has little weight in law. A bare denial is an inherently weak defense,^[3][41] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.^[4][42]

Time and again, We have held that “denials unsubstantiated by convincing evidence are not enough to engender reasonable doubt particularly where the prosecution presents sufficiently telling proof of guilt.”^[5][43]

In the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused-appellants, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.^[6][44]  Especially here, where an astute analysis of MADAC operative Bilason’s testimony does not indicate any inconsistency, contradiction, or fabrication.