ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

-The preventive suspension of civil service employees charged with dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect of duty is authorized by the Civil Service Law. However, the suspension shall be limited to ninety (90) days unless the delay in the conclusion of the investigation was due to the employee concerned. After the period, even if the investigation is not finished, the law provides that the employees shall be automatically reinstated. (Gloria vs. CA, 306 SCRA 287, April 21, 1999, En banc)

“MISCONDUCT” is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. (Bureau of Internal Revenue, etc. vs. Lilia B. Organo, G.R. No. 149549, February 26, 2004, Panganiban, J.; Office of the Court Administration vs. Bucoy, Adm. Matter No. P-93-953, 25 August 94, EN BANC, Per Curiam)”

“ Misconduct in office warranting removal must have a 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. (Atty. Edwin Betguen, et. al. vs. Masanglay, et.al., Adm. Case No. P-93-822, 1 December 1994, EN BANC, Per Curiam; Sargumba vs. Pasok, 155 SCRA 646 (1987); Municipal Councilor of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija vs. Alomia, Jr., 212 SCRA 330. (1992)”

Serious misconduct in office is such misconduct which affects the performance of his duties as a public officer and not only his character as a private individual. It is settled that misconduct, warranting removal from office of an officer, must have a driect relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties. (Teresita G. Fabian vs. Nestor vs. Agustin, G.R. No. 143092, February 14, 2003; Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.)“Misconduct have been defined as” wrong or improper conduct”, and “GROSS” has been held to mean “flagrant”; shameful. “Misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not mere error of judgment. An act done in good faith, which constitutes only as an error of judgment does not satisfy the definition of “gross misconduct”. ( Camus vs. Civil Service Board of Appeals, 2 SCRA 370 (1961).”

As differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct “the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest. (Bureau of Internal

Revenue, etc. vs. Lilia B. Organo, G.R. No. 149549, February 26, 2004, Panganiban, J).

In administrative proceedings, the complainants have the burden of proving, substantial evidence, the allegations in his or her complaint. (Cortes vs. Agcadili, 294 SCRA 423). Substantial evidence, which is the question of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, connotes merely that amount of relevant evidence, which a reasonable mind might accept to be adequate in justifying a conclusion. (Equitable Banking Corp. vs. Nena, 273 SCRA 352)

“Negligence is the want of care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require.”1 (Underscored Supplied)

“GROSS - glaring; flagrant; very bad (a gross miscalculation); evident; obvious xxx.2

“NEGLIGENCE - habitual failure to do the required thing ; carelessness in manner or appearance; indifference; failure to use a reasonable amount of care when such failure results in injury or damage to another.”3

“Negligence has been defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances greatly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.”4(Emphasis Supplied)

“It is an established rule that an affirmative testimony is far stronger than negative testimony, especially so when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.”5

“As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.”6

1 Adzuara vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 125134, January 22, 1999.

2 Webster’s New World Dictionary by Victoria Neufeldt and David B. Guralnik, 3rd

College Edition (1994).3 Ibid.4 Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92087, May 8, 1992; New Civil Code of the Philippines by Edgardo L. Paras, 14th Edition (1998), pp. 131-132.5 People vs. Mendez, 335 SCRA 147.6 People vs. Alvero, 329 SCRA 737.