LUIS P. PINEDA , complainant, vs. NEIL T.

TORRES, Sherif
III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Angeles
City, respondent.
(Pineda v. Torres, A.M. No. P-12-3027, January 30, 2012);
Peralta
|||

1. A sheriff is duty-bound to know the basic rules relative to the

implementation of writs of execution, and should, at all times
show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of
his duties.
2. Administrative Circular No. 12 is explicit as to the rules to be
followed in the implementation of writs.
3. Sheriffs, as agents of law, are therefore called upon to
discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence.

SAMUEL
B. ONG, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET
AL., respondents.
(Ong v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 184219, January 30,
2012); Reyes
|||

1. No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removied

or suspended except for cause provided by law.
2. The appointment of non-Career Executive Service (CES)
eligible to CES positions in the government in the absence of
appropriate eligibles and when there is necessity in the
interest of public service to fill vacancies in the government.
3. Temporary appointments are made if only to prevent hiatus in
the governments rendition of public service.
4. The acceptance of a temporary appointment divests an
appointee of the right to security of tenure against removal
without cause.
5. A c0-terminous appointment is defined as one co-existing
with the tenure of the appointing authority or at his pleasure.

RUBEN DEL CASTILLO @

BOY CASTILLO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
(Del Castillo v. People, G.R. No. 185128, January 30, 2012);
Peralta
|||

1. The Local Government Code contains a provision which

describes the function of a barangay tanod as an agent of
persons in authority. Del Castillo vs. People. p. 430.

RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ENGR. OSCAR L. ONGJOCO,

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD/CEO OF FH-GYMN MULTIPURPOSE AND TRANSPORT SERVICE COOPERATIVE,

AGAINST HON. JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR., HON. RAMON M.

BATO, JR. AND HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ASSOCIATE
JUSTICES, COURT OF APPEALS
(Re: Ongjoco, A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J, January 31, 2012);
Bersamin
|||

1. Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions brought against

any judge in relation to the performance or his official
functions are neither complementary to nor suppletory of
appropriate judicial remedies, nor a substitute for such
remedies.
2. A judges failure to correctly interpret the law or to properly
appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily incur
administrative liability.

CONCERNED CITIZEN, complainant, vs. DOMINGA

NAWEN ABAD, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 35, BONTOC, MOUNTAIN
PROVINCE,respondent.
(Concerned Citizen v. Abad, A.M. No. P-11-2907, January 31,
2012); Per Curiam
|||

1. The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct,

official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from
the judge to the lowest of its personnel.
2. Dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the
first offense.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. MINERVA
M.P. PACHEO, respondent.
(Republic v. Pacheo, G.R. No. 178021, January 31, 2012);
Mendoza
|||

1. While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is

permissible even without the employees prior consent, it
cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step toward
his removal, or a scheme to lure him away from his permanent
position, or when it is designed to indirectly terminate his
service, or force his resignation.
2. Constructive dismissal is a situation when an employee quits
his work because of the agency heads unreasonable,
humiliating, or demeaning actuations which render continued
work impossible.
3. A details is defined and governed by Executive Order 292.
Book V, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 5, Section 26 (6), thus: (6)
Detail. A detail is a movement of an employee from one
agency to another without the issuance of an appointment

and shall be allowed, only for a limited period in the case of

employees occupying professional, technical and scientific
positions.
4. A reassignment is defined and governed by E.O. 292, Book V,
Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 5, Section 36 (7), thus: An
employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to
another in the same agency, Provided, That such
reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank, status or
salaries.
5. Reassignments involving a reduction in rank, status or salary
violate an employees security of tenure, which is assure by
the Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, and the
Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations.

JUDGE LUCINA ALPEZ DAYAON, Presiding Judge,

Regional Trial Court of Macabebe, Pampanga, Branch
54, complainant, vs. JESUSA V. DE LEON, Court
Stenographer III of the same court, respondent.
(Dayaon v. De Leon, A.M. No. P-11-2926, February 01, 2012);
Carpio
|||

1. Under AC 14-2002 and the Uniform Rules on Administrative

Cases in the Civil Service, the penalty of habitual absenteeism
for the first offense is suspension of six (6) months and one (1)
day to (1) year.
2. The presence of factors such as length of service in the
judiciary, acknowledgement of infractions and feeling of
remorse, and gamily circumstances, among other things, play
an important role in the imposition of penalties.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and the DISTRICT

COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF
SUBIC, petitioners, vs. HYPERMIX FEEDS CORPORATION, r
espondent.
(Commr. of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds Corp., G.R. No.
179579, February 01, 2012); Sereno
|||

1. When the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing

for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome
the implementation of the law but substantially increases the
burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord
at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and
thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is
given the force and effect of law.
2. Rules and regulations, which are the product of a delegated
power to create new and additional legal provisions that have
the effect of law, should be within the scope of the statutory

authority granted by the legislature to the administrative

agency.

ANNABELLE F. GARCIA, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial

Court in Cities, Branch 2, Olongapo City, complainant, vs.
HERMINIO C. REYES and ZOSIMA S. DE VERA,
Interpreter and Stenographer, respectively, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Olongapo
City, respondents.
(Garcia v. Reyes, A.M. No. P-06-2111, February 08, 2012);
Carpio
|||

1. Falsification of time records amounts to dishonesty.

2. Court personnel shall commit themselves exclusively to the
business and responsibilities of their office during working
hours.
3. Factors such as the respondents length of service in the
judiciary, the respondents acknowledgment of his or her
infractions ad feeling of remorse, and family circumstances,
among others, have had varying significance in the Courts
determination of the imposable penalty.
4. Supreme Court considers respondents length of service and
admission, respectively, as circumstances that serve to
mitigate their liability.
5. In performing their duties and responsibilities, court personnel
serve as sentinels of justice and any act of impropriety on
their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the
Judiciary and the peoples confidence in it.

SPOUSES DEMOCRITO and

OLIVIA LAGO, complainants, vs. JUDGE GODOFREDO
B. ABUL, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Gingoog
City, respondent.
(Spouses Lago v. Abul, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255, February 08,
2012); Mendoza
|||

1. Judges are not administratively responsible for what they may

do in the exercise of their judicial functions when acting within
their legal powers and jurisdiction.
2. To constitute gross ignorance of the law, it is not enough that
the subject decision, order or actuation of the respondent
judge in the performance of his official duties is contrary to
the existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he
must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs.

JUDGE CELSO L. MANTUA, Regional Trial Court, Branch
17, Palompon, Leyte, respondent.
|||

(Office of the Court Administrator v. Mantua, A.M. No. RTJ-112291, February 08, 2012); Carpio
1. Section 15(2), Article VII of the 1987 Constitution requires that
judges of lower courts decide cases within three months from
the date of submission; Undue delay in rendering a decision or
order is a less serious charge, penalized either by suspension
from office without salary and other benefits for not less than
one nor more than three months; or by a fine of more than
P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
2. This court concedes that there are no promulgated rules on
the conduct of judicial audit.

Re: Request of Justice JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, Co

urt of Appeals, that her services as Assistant Provincial
Fiscal of Laguna be credited as part of her services in
the Judiciary for purposes of her retirement.
(Re: Josefina Guevara-Salonga, A.M. No. 11-10-7-SC, February
14, 2012); Per Curiam
|||

1. A law, as a general rule, is applicable prospectively; thus, it

should apply only to those who are presently in the service,
who had rendered service and who will retire in the Judiciary
after the effectivity of the law. By its express provision,
however, it made itself applicable even to those who retired
prior to its effectivity; thus, they should also benefit from the
upgrading mandated by the law.

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.
(MIAA v. COA, G.R. No. 194710, February 14, 2012); Reyes
|||

1. The grant of a signing bonus had been previously disallowed

by the express mandate of then President Gloria MacapagalArroyo.
2. Good faith is anchored on the honest belief that one is legally
entitled to the benefit.

LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs.
LEONCIO K. GUTIERREZ III, CLERK III, REGIONAL
TRIALCOURT, BRANCH 116, PASAY CITY, respondent.
(Leave Division, OAS-OCA v. Gutierrez III, A.M. No. P-11-2951,
February 15, 2012); Leonardo-De Castro
|||

1. The burden of proof is upon the party who alleges the truth of
his claim or defense or any fact in the issue.

2. Gutierrez committed dishonesty when he deliberately

attempted to conceal or suppress his absence on February 26,
2010 by falsifying his Daily Time Record (DTR); such set
manifested his lack of integrity and responsibility
3. Rule IV, Section 53 of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grants the
disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating
circumstances, such as voluntary confession and bing a firsttime offender, in the imposition of the proper penalty.

ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA and ATTY. CLARITO

SERVILLAS, complainants, vs. JUDGE VICTOR A. CANOY,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Surigao
City, respondent. (Medina v. Canoy, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2298,
February 22, 2012); Carpio
|||

1. A judge may properly intervene in the presentation of

evidence to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time
and clarify obscure and incomplete details in the course of the
testimony of the witness.
2. The administrative proceedings, complainants have the
burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in
their complaints; In the absence of contrary evidence, what
will prevail is the presumption that the respondent judge has
regularly performed his duties.
3. Judges shall perform all judicial duties including the delivery of
reserved decisions efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness.
4. Under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended,
gross ignorance of the law is a serious charge punishable by
either: (1) dismissal from service, forfeiture of all or part of the
benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
government-owned and controlled corporation; or (2)
suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
more than three but not exceeding its months; or (3) a fine of
more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000 while undue
delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge
punishable by either (1) suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three
months; or (2) a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding
P20,000.

SHEILA G. DEL ROSARIO, Court Stenographer III,

Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Santiago City,
Isabela, complainant, vs. MARY ANNE C. PASCUA, Court
Stenographer III, same Court, respondent.
|||

(Del Rosario v. Pascua, A.M. No. P-11-2999, February 27,

2012); Brion
1. Court personnel who wish to travel abroad must secure a
travel authority from the Office of the Court Administrator.
Section 67 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave provides that [a]ny
violation of the leave laws, rules and regulations, or any
misrepresentation or deception in connection with an
application for leave shall be ground for disciplinary action.
2. Dishonesty means the concealment of truth in a matter of fact
relevant to ones office or connected with the performance of
his duties.
3. View that the constitutional right to travel cannot be impaired
without due process of law which requires the existence of law
regulating travel abroad, in the interest of national security,
public safety or public health; In the absence of such law, the
denial of respondents right to travel abroad is a gross
violation of a fundamental constitutional right.
4. View that the Court cannot inquire what respondent does
during her leave of absence since that would constitute
unwarranted interference into her private affairs and would
encroach on her right to privacy.

JELBERT B. GALICTO, petitioner, vs. H.E. PRESIDENT BENIGNO

SIMEON C. AQUINO III, in his capacity as President of the Republic
of the Philippines; ATTY. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity
as Executive Secretary; and FLORENCIO B. ABAD, in his capacity
as Secretary of the Department of Budget and
Management, respondents.
(Galicto vs. Aquino III, G.R. No. 193978. February 28, 2012.]; Brion
1. View that accountability in public office requires nationality
and efficiency in both administrative and financial operations
of all government offices, government-owned and controlled
corporations (GOCCs) included.
2. View that a public officer has a vested right only to salaries
already earned or accrued, he does not have right to an
increase in salary.

RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF JUDGE IRMA Z

ITA V. MASAMAYOR,
(Re: Masamayor, A.M. No. 12-2-6-SC, March 06, 2012); PerlasBernabe
|||

1. Disqualifications for Appointment to Any Judicial Post or as

Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman.

2. The Court laid down the following guidelines revolving

requests for judicial clemency, thus: 1. There must be proof of
remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not
be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or
chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or
judges associations and prominent members of the
community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent
finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or
similar conduct will give rise to a strong presumption of nonreformation. 2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the
imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform. 3. The
age of the persona asking for clemency must show that he still
has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good
use by giving him a chance to redeem himself. 4. There must
be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify
clemency.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. AURORA

M. CLAVE, respondent.
(CSC v. Clave, G.R. No. 194645, 194665, March 06, 2012); Per
Curiam
|||

1. Simple neglect of duty is the failure to give attention to a task,

or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference.
2. Claves length of service in the government could not mitigate
her liability considering that the present offense is not her first
offense but her third offense.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. NELLIE

R. APOLONIO, respondent.
(Office of the Ombudsman v. Apolonio, G.R. No. 165132, March
07, 2012); Brion
|||

1. The Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of

removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution
of a public officers or employee, in the exercise of its
administrative disciplinary authority.
2. That the Constitution merely indicated a recommendatory
power in the text of Section 13(3), Article XI of the
Constitution did not deprive Congress of its plenary legislative
power to vest the Ombudsman powers beyond those stated.
3. Court defined misconduct as a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer;
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.

VICTORY
M. FERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSM
AN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN
FLORENCIO T. MIRAFLORES, INCUMBENT GOVERNOR
CARLITO MARQUEZ, and
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RONALDO V. PUNO, respondents.
(Fernandez v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 193983,
March 14, 2012); Carpio
|||

1. Gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the

want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently nut
willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to
consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is
the omission of that care which even inattentive and
thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property.
2. Pursuant to Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 or the
Administrative Code of 1987, gross negligence in the
performance of duty is classified as a grave offense for which
the penalty of dismissal is imposed. Section 9 f the said Rule
likewise provides that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with
it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and
retirement benefits and disqualification from re-employment
in government service.

PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs.

PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT & EQUIPMENT,
INC., respondent.
(Philippine Tourism Authority v. Philippine Golf Development &
Equipment, Inc., G.R. No. 176628, March 19, 2012); Brion
|||

1.

Gross negligence is characterized by want of even slight care,

acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to
act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a
conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other
persons may be affected.

CORAZON T. NEVADA, complainant, vs. ATTY. RODOLFO

D. CASUGA, respondent.
(Nevada v. Casuga, A.C. No. 7591, March 20, 2012); Velasco, Jr
|||

1. The grounds for removal of a judge of first instance under

Philippine law are two: (1) Serious misconduct and (2)
inefficiency.

Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of A

cting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C, Office of the Om
budsman.
(Re: Amante, A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC, 10-9-9-SC, March 20, 2012);
Per Curiam
|||

1. Professional misconduct involving the misuse of constitutional

provisions for the purpose of insulting Members of this Court is
a serious breach of he rigid standards that a member of good
standing of the legal profession must faithfully comply with.
2. While this Court will not hesitate to discipline its erring
officers, it will not prolong a penalty after it has been shown
that the purpose for imposing it had already been served.

SHERYLL C. DELA CRUZ, complainant, vs. PAMELA

P. MALUNAO, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 28,
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, respondent.
(dela Cruz v. Malunao, A.M. No. P-11-3019, March 20, 2012);
Per Curiam
|||

1. The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service

govern the conduct of disciplinary and non-disciplinary
proceedings in administrative cases.
2. The weight of evidence required in administrative
investigations is substantial evidence; In the hierarchy of
evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the
highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, then
by preponderance of evidence, and lastly by substantial
evidence, in that order.
3. Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or
benefit based on any or explicit understanding that such gift,
favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.
4. In Rule IV, Section 52(A)(11) of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, soliciting or
accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value which in
the course of an employees official duties may affect the
functions of his office merits the penalty of dismissal for the
first offense.

PRISCILLA L. HERNANDO, complainant, vs. JULIANA

Y. BENGSON, Legal Researcher, RTC, Branch 104,
Quezon City, respondent. (Hernando v. Bengson, A.M. No. P09-2686, March 21, 2012); Mendoza
|||

1. Bengson should be liable under Rule IV, Section 52 (A) 20 for

conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in view
of her act of offering her services for facilitation of the land
transfer papers at the BIR and representing that her half-sister
and niece had the capacity to facilitate the titling of subject
property.