Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    G.R. No. 160991, February 28, 2005. Samson vs. Restrivera, G.R. No. 178454, March 28, 2011. Avenido vs. CSC, G.R. No. 177666, April 30, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Iman Marion
    The document discusses the elements required to establish misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service for public officials based on relevant Supreme Court cases and statutes. It notes that under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, a public officer must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury or unwarranted benefits. Misconduct involves transgressing rules or gross negligence, while grave misconduct involves additional elements like corruption. The Code of Conduct for public officials requires respecting the rights of others and refraining from unlawful or unethical acts. The Ombudsman can preventively suspend an officer if evidence of guilt is strong

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 160991, February 28, 2005. Samson vs. Restrivera, G.R. No. 178454, March 28, 2011. Avenido vs. CSC, G.R. No. 177666, April 30, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Iman Marion
    33 views2 pages
    The document discusses the elements required to establish misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service for public officials based on relevant Supreme Court cases and statutes. It notes that under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, a public officer must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury or unwarranted benefits. Misconduct involves transgressing rules or gross negligence, while grave misconduct involves additional elements like corruption. The Code of Conduct for public officials requires respecting the rights of others and refraining from unlawful or unethical acts. The Ombudsman can preventively suspend an officer if evidence of guilt is strong

    Original Description:

    graft cases

    Original Title

    RA 3019 Elements, Misconduct

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the elements required to establish misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service for public officials based on relevant Supreme Court cases and statutes. It notes that under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, a public officer must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury or unwarranted benefits. Misconduct involves transgressing rules or gross negligence, while grave misconduct involves additional elements like corruption. The Code of Conduct for public officials requires respecting the rights of others and refraining from unlawful or unethical acts. The Ombudsman can preventively suspend an officer if evidence of guilt is strong

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 160991, February 28, 2005. Samson vs. Restrivera, G.R. No. 178454, March 28, 2011. Avenido vs. CSC, G.R. No. 177666, April 30, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Iman Marion
    The document discusses the elements required to establish misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service for public officials based on relevant Supreme Court cases and statutes. It notes that under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, a public officer must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury or unwarranted benefits. Misconduct involves transgressing rules or gross negligence, while grave misconduct involves additional elements like corruption. The Code of Conduct for public officials requires respecting the rights of others and refraining from unlawful or unethical acts. The Ombudsman can preventively suspend an officer if evidence of guilt is strong

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    In Velasco vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.

    1, the Supreme Court held that the essential elements of Section


    3(e) of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, are as follows:

    1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;

    2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence;
    and

    3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any
    private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
    functions.

    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 evidence2

    Acts may constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as long as they tarnish
    the image and integrity of his/her public office. 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 interest3;

    1
    G.R. No. 160991, February 28, 2005.
    2
    Samson vs. Restrivera, G.R. No. 178454, March 28, 2011.
    3
    Avenido vs. CSC, G.R. No. 177666, April 30, 2008.
    The power of the Ombudsman to preventively suspend any public officer administratively charged
    before it under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770 -- is already well-recognized (Buenaseda v. Flavier, G.R.
    No. 106719, September 21, 1993). Under Sec. 24 of RA 6770, a public officer may be preventively
    suspended if the following two requisites concur: first, the evidence of guilt is strong; and second,
    which may be met any of the following three (3) circumstances or ways: a) the charge involves
    dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; b) the charge would
    warrant removal from the service; or c) the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case
    filed against him(Ombudsman et al. v. Valeroso, G.R. No. 167828, April 2, 2007; Office of the
    Ombudsman vs. Evangelista, et.al. G.R. No. 177211, 13 March 2009).

    You might also like