Misconduct has been defined as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public office."[1] Misconduct becomes 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.[2] Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[3]

[1] Ombudsman v. Apolonio, G.R. No. 165132, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 583, 600-601, citing Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, 508 Phil. 569, 579 (2005), citing Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Organo, 468 Phil. 113, 118 (2004); and Castelo v. Florendo, 459 Phil. 581, 597 (2003).
[2] Id., citing Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, 508 Phil. 569, 579 (2005); citing Civil Service Comission v. Lucas, 361 Phil. 486 (1999); and Landrito v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. Nos. 104304-05, June 22, 1993.
[3] Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Dumapis, 584 Phil. 100 (2008).

0 Comments