Memorandum Circular No.

92-006 prescribes the rules and regulations in the

conduct of summary dismissal proceedings against erring PNP members and

defines conduct unbecoming of a police officer under Section 3(c), Rule II, as

follows:

Conduct unbecoming of a police officer refers to any behavior or action

of a PNP member, irrespective of rank, done in his official capacity, which,

in dishonoring or otherwise disgracing himself as a PNP member,

seriously compromise his character and standing as a gentleman in such

a manner as to indicate his vitiated or corrupt state of moral character; it

may also refer to acts or behavior of any PNP member in an unofficial or

private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing himself personally as

a gentleman, seriously compromises his position as a PNP member and

exhibits himself as morally unworthy to remain as a member of the

organization.[8] (Underscoring supplied)

Webster defines unbecoming conduct as improper

performance. Such term applies to a broader range of transgressions of
rules not only of social behavior but of ethical practice or logical
procedure or prescribed method. Obviously, the charges of neglect of
duty, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties
fall within the scope of conduct unbecoming a police officer. Thus, we
agree with the Court of Appeals when it ruled:

Even assuming that the charge against petitioner is not serious within the
contemplation of paragraph (a) of Section 42 above quoted, or that he is not a
recidivist within the context of paragraph (b), he could nonetheless fall within the
ambit of paragraph (c) thereof, in that, because of his laxity and inefficiency in
 the performance of his duties, he is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a police
officer.[11]

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 evidence. [Please see Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521,
September 30, 2005, citing BIR v. Organo, 424 SCRA 9 and CSC v. Lucas, 361 Phil. 486
(1999)]

In this case, Mr. X knew that he has no authority to sign. Mere absence of the head of
the office does not necessarily give Mr. X the authority to sign the documents that may
only be validly signed by the head of such office. Mr. X’s contention—that “the same
document shall be reviewed by some other higher authorities in the region anyway and so
it is now up to such higher authorities to disallow the act he has done”—is totally
misplaced and has no legal leg to stand on.

Thus, the aforementioned circumstances should demonstrate Mr. X’s willful intent to
violate the law or to disregard established rules making him liable for grave misconduct.

As previously stated, under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (RRACCS) promulgated in November 8, 2011, by the CSC, administrative
offenses are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or
depravity and effects on the government service.

Thus, under Section 46, Rule 10 of RRACCS, grave misconduct is a grave offense
punishable by dismissal from the service. “Simple misconduct” is a less grave offense
punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense
and dismissal for the second offense.

Misconduct may be considered simple if the additional elements of corruption, willful

intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules are not present. (Please see
also Samson v. Restrivera, G.R. No. 178454, March 28, 2011)