Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GRAVE
LESS GRAVE
LIGHT
GRAVE OFFENSES
Knowingly falsifying the entries in
1stTime Record2(DTR)
the Daily nd
3rd
Offense Offense Offense
FLAGRANT/SHAMEFUL
LIGAYA M. APOLINARIO vs. DESIREE B.
Neglect ofJanuary
duty: refusal
22, 2007or unwillingness
1. *Dishonesty FLORES,
Dismissal
of a person to perform a duty
MICHAEL A. LATIZA, Court Aide, Regional
JUDGE ABRAHAM D. CAÑA, complainant, vs. ROBERTO B. GEBUSION, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court,
2. *Gross Neglect of D
Trial
Branch 58, San Carlos City, Negros
Failure of
1. Habitual drunkenness
Court,toBranch
Occidental,
a judge decide14,
respondent. Cebu
a case City, for
within
a periodUnexplained
fixed by lawAbsences and Involvement in
Duty 2. Misconduct
the Loss of Evidence
3. Going on indefinite leave of absence without prior approval of the
3. *Grave Misconduct D
immediate chief in violation of existing Civil Service Law and Rules
4. Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
5. Loafing or frequent or unauthorized absences during office hours, (in
4. *Being Notoriously D
connection with his compulsive drinking habit)
6. Mental incapacity due to vicious (drinking) habit
undesirable
1 st
2 nd
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. 3 rd
VICENTE P. LIBRADO,Offense
Deputy Sheriff,Offense
MTCC, BranchOffense
1, Iligan
City, respondent.
5. *Conviction of aand having inDismissal
for selling his possession certain quantities of
prohibited drugs known as metamphetamine hydrochloride or
crime involving
“shabu” moral
turpitude
6. *Falsification of Dismissal
official document
7. *Physical or mental Dismissal
incapacity or
disability due to vicious
habits
1
Mr. Garcia did not honor the suspension
st
2
order.
3
nd He alsorddid
not answer the subpoena issued against him and instead
has proceeded with an ex parte investigation on the
8. *Engaging directly or indirectly
allegation that only thein D can suspend and
City Mayor
partisan political activities
discipline him. by one
holding non-political office
9. *Receiving for personal use of a fee, D
gift or other valuable thing in the
course of official duties or in
connection therewith when such fee,
gift or other valuable thing is given by
any person in the hope or expectation
of receiving a favor or better
treatment than that accorded to other
persons, or committing acts punishable
under the anti-graft laws.
LORNA FRANCES FILIPINO,1petitioner
st
2vs.ndF. WALTER
3rd R.
MACABUHAY, representing Drugmakers’ Laboratories,
10. *Contracting loans
Inc.,of moneyNovember
respondent; or D24, 2006.
She demanded a loan from the company in the amount
other property from persons with
of P110,000.00 and because of her disciplinary power
whom the officeandof supervisory
the employee
authority, the company succumbed to
has business relations
her demands and issued a check in the same amount,
supported by Cash Voucher No. 36203 in her name
11. *Soliciting or accepting directly or D
indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value which in the course of
his official duties or in
connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction which
may be affected by the functions of
his office.
“Sec. 59. Nepotism. – (1) All appointments1 , made in favor
st
2 of3
nd rd