Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Santos vs Rasalan
Santos vs Rasalan
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J : p
On March 24, 2000, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered its Decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
(Underscoring supplied)
The Office of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals found that the
acts committed by petitioner as a public employee are unreasonable, unfair,
oppressive, irregular, immoral and devoid of justification, thus falling within the
purview of the above-quoted constitutional and statutory provisions. We find no
cogent reason to deviate from their findings.
Pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. No. 6770, the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and
nonfeasance committed by any public officer or employee during his/her tenure
of office, thus:
SEC. 16. Applicability. — The provisions of this Act shall apply
to all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance that have
been committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13
hereof, during his tenure of office.
For who could not feel the shame of these slanderous remarks?
"Erlinda F. Santos: Di ba Baby, only the mother can tell who is
the father of her child."
The foregoing words imply that the father of the newborn baby is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
other than complainant's husband. But, of course, the respondent very
well knew the husband of the complainant, who is the brother of her
boyfriend. To ask who the father of the child of the complainant is to
impute that the father of the child is other than Ramon Rasalan, the
husband of the complainant. No other meaning could be inferred from
the foregoing words.
We shall not disturb the above findings. Under Section 27 of R.A. No.
6770, findings of fact by the Ombudsman are conclusive as long as these are
supported by substantial evidence, 10 as in this case.
However, under the same set of facts, we do not agree that petitioner's
offense can be categorized as "grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service." Her offense merely constitutes simple
misconduct.
I n Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, 11 we held that 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. 12 Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. A person
charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the
misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the
misconduct as grave. Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense
of simple misconduct. 13
Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, we hold that the penalty of
suspension of two (2) months without pay is in order.
One final word. The law does not tolerate misconduct by a civil servant.
Petitioner's acts in question undoubtedly violate the norm of decency and
diminish or tend to diminish the people's respect for those in the government
service. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object is the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and
confidence in the government. 15
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
1. Filed under Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
8. G.R. Nos. 118813-14, April 8, 1997, 271, SCRA 67, citing Deloso v. Domingo,
191 SCRA 545 (1990). caCTHI
12. Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, id. , citing Civil Service Commission v.
Lucas, 361 Phil. 486; 301 SCRA 560 (1999); Landrito v. Civil Service
Commission , 223 SCRA 564 (1993).
13. Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, id.
14. Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999 of the Civil Service Commission.
15. Civil Service Commission v. Cortez , G.R. No. 155732, June 3, 2004, 430
SCRA 593, citing Bautista v. Negado , 108 Phil. 283, 289 (1960).