[G.R. No. L-13298. March 30, 1959.

JOSE U. OCHATE, MAYOR of Clarin, Misamis Occidental, Petitioner, v. DIEGO H.

TY DELING, Provincial Governor of Misamis Occidental, Et Al., Respondents.

‘It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from

office of an officer, must have 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 . . .’ (43 Am. Jur. 39, 40). Tho this
effect is the principle laid down in Cornejo v. Naval, supra.

Of course, abetting gambling by the mayor within his territorial jurisdiction is an

infringement of his official oath to compel obedience to the laws and may therefore
constitute "misconduct" or "neglect of duty" (which brings us to the charge of "neglect
of duty"),

"Oppression" has been defined as "an act cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction,
domination, or excessive use of authority" (United States v. Deaver, 14 Fed. 495).

A.M. No. 17-01-04-SC - LawPhil

Dereliction of duty may be classified as gross or simple neglect of duty or negligence. Gross neglect of duty or gross
negligence "refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to
the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and
thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property." It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of
a person to perform a duty. In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is
flagrant and palpable.[2] In contrast, simple neglect of duty means the failure of an employee or official to give proper
attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a "disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or
indifference."[3]

In this relation, it is settled that the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual liable for the aforesaid
offenses is substantial evidence, or "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion."[4] Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required
in ordinary civil cases, but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. [5]

EDITA S. BUENO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN - Lawyerly

On the finding of petitioners' administrative liability, we find no reversible
error committed by the Ombudsman.

Section 5(a) of RA 6713 explicitly mandates as follows:

SEC. 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. In the performance of
their duties, all public officials and employees are under obligation to:

(a) All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days
from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of
communications sent by the public. The reply must contain, the action
taken on the request.

xxxx

Records showed that despite Ranchez's written and verbal requests made
between September and November 2004 in connection with his pending
petition for review/reconsideration on his disqualification on the basis of
the subject memoranda and its approval by the NEA Board of
Administrators, petitioners did not respond to his queries or at the very
least inform him that as early as May 27, 2004, the NEA Board of
Administrators had already approved the subject memoranda. Notably,
Ranchez had invoked the OGCC's Opinion declaring the subject
memoranda to have no binding force and effect on electric cooperatives
which is contrary to petitioner Bueno's stance that the said regulations
remain valid until declared illegal by a competent court. Moreover, despite
constant follow ups, Ranchez was not informed as to when the NEA Board
of Administrators will take up or its action on his petition for
reconsideration. In any event, petitioners clearly failed to disclose crucial
information sought by Ranchez within fifteen working days, in violation of
Section 5(a) of RA 6713.

We note that the Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees emphasizes promptness in
attending to requests made upon government offices or agencies. Rule VI,
Sections 1 and 3(2) provides:

SECTION 1. As a general rule, when a request or petition, whether written

or verbal, can be disposed of promptly and expeditiously the official and
employee in charge to whom the same is presented shall do so immediately,
without discrimination, and in no case beyond fifteen (15) working days
from receipt of the request or petition.
xxxx

SEC. 3. In case of written requests, petitions or motions, sent by means of

letters, telegrams, or the like, the official or employee in charge shall act on
the same within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, provided
that:

(b) If the communication is within the jurisdiction of the office or agency,

the official and employee must:

(1) x x x

(2) Where the matter is non-routinary or the issues involved are not simple
or ordinary, write a note or letter of acknowledgment, informing the
interested party, petitioner or correspondent of the action to be
taken or when such requests, petitions or motions can be acted
upon. Where there is a need to submit additional information,
requirements, or documents, the note or letter of acknowledgement shall so
state, specifying a reasonable period of time within which they should be
submitted, and the name of the particular official or employee in charge
thereof. When all the documents or requirements have been submitted to
the satisfaction of the department or office or agency concerned, the
particular official or employee in charge shall inform the interested party,
petitioner, or correspondent of the action to be taken and when such action
or disposition can be expected, barring unforeseen circumstances.
(Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioners violated the above mandate and presented no proof whatsoever

that they made a written reply to Ranchez's requests within the prescribed
period of fifteen (15) days. This constituted neglect of duty which cannot be
countenanced.[30] Petitioners should be reminded that as government
officials and employees they are expected to adhere to the standards set by
law in the discharge of their official duties, among others, commitment to
public service, professionalism, justness and sincerity and responsiveness
to the public.[31]

Under Section 52 (C) (13) and (15), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, petitioners' infraction is classified
as a light offense.
SEC. 52. Classification of Offenses. x x x

xxxx

C. The following are Light Offenses with corresponding penalties:

xxxx

13. Failure to act promptly on letters and request within fifteen (15) days
from receipt x x x

1st Offense Reprimand

2nd Offense Suspension 1-30 days
3rd Offense Dismissal
xxxx
15. Failure to attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of
the office, or act promptly and expeditiously on public transactions

1st Offense Reprimand

2nd Offense Suspension 1-30 days
3rd Offense - Dismissal

This being petitioners' first offense, the penalty of reprimand imposed by

the Ombudsman was thus proper. As to the Ombudsman's pronouncement
in the fallo of its decision that petitioners have not been shown to have
acted in bad faith and with malice, this will not exculpate them from
administrative liability. There is nothing in RA 6713 or its implementing
rules that requires a finding of malice or bad faith in the commission of the
administrative offense defined under Section 5.
(A.M. OCA-IPI No. 00-904-P)

JUDGE MANUEL R. ORTIGUERRA, Complainant, v. EUSTAQUIO P. GENOTA, JR.,

Process Server, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 8, Respondent. 2002

Employees applying for leave, whenever, possible must submit in advance their
applications for leave. This requirement has to be complied with assiduously "its
purpose being undoubtedly to enable management to make the necessary adjustment
in order that the work may not be paralyzed" 4 or hampered. Thus, Section 15, Rule
XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292 provides that —

Any employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness regardless of

number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least 2 months in a semester or at
least 2 consecutive months during the year. In case of claim of ill-health, heads of
departments of agencies are encouraged to verify the validity of such claim and, if not
satisfied with the reason given, should disapprove the application for sick leave. On the
other hand, cases of employees who absent themselves from work before the approval
of the application should be disapproved outright.

Applications for vacation leave of absence for one full day or more shall be submitted
on the prescribed form for action by the proper chief of agency in advance, whenever
possible, of the effective date of such leave.

Under Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, of the Civil Service Commission, an
officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered habitually absent if he incurs
unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credits under
the leave law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3)
consecutive months during the year. Such a violation renders the erring employee
administratively liable for the grave offense of Frequent Unauthorized Absences or
Tardiness in Reporting for Duty and for Gross Neglect of Duty under Section 22 (q) and
(a), respectively of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
292. 5

Along the same vein, under Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of 1989,
which classified habitual absenteeism as a grave offense, frequent unauthorized
absences or tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing or frequent unauthorized absences
during regular office hours is penalized, if found guilty on the first offense, with
suspension from six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year and for the second
offense, with dismissal from the service. 6 Under the present Omnibus Rules on
Appointments and Other Personnel Actions, an employee who is absent without
approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be separated from the service
or dropped from the rolls even without prior notice. 7

Given the foregoing, respondent’s malfeasance is classified as frequent or habitual. On

this point, Section II of Administrative Circular No. 2-99, entitled "Strict Observance Of
Working Hours And Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism And Tardiness" lays down the
degree of stringency which must be adopted in the determination of the proper
sanctions to be imposed, viz: chanrob1es vi rtual 1aw lib rary

II. Absenteeism and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as "habitual" or "frequent"
under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, shall be
dealt with severely, and any falsification of daily time records to cover up for such
absenteeism and/or tardiness shall constitute gross dishonesty or serious misconduct.
(Emphasis supplied)

As has been stated earlier, unauthorized absences are punishable by suspension of six
months and one day to one year for the first offense, and the penalty of dismissal for
the second offense, 8 and that frequent, habitual and unauthorized absenteeism and
tardiness shall merit the supreme penalty of dismissal. 9 By his habitual absenteeism
respondent Genota has caused inefficiency in the public service. chanrob1es vi rtua 1 1aw 1ib rary

The gravity of the acts complained of would have warranted respondent’s separation
from the service and his being dropped from the rolls. It appears however that after
being detailed to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC-Malolos, Bulacan,
respondent undertook in earnest to mend his ways and this must be considered to
mitigate his liability. 10

Pro Complainant/ Respondent

IMPLEMENTING THE NEW GUIDELINES ON THE FILING OF APPLICATION FOR
VACATION LEAVE AS EMBODIED IN CSC RESOLUTION NO. 84-034, 1985, inconsistent
thereby repealed by CSC 98-3142, 1998

This Office fully concurs with the Civil Service Commission in its observation that there
have been cases of circumvention of the civil service rules and regulations on leave, such
as employees absenting themselves from office without an approved leave; employees
going on leave prior to the approval of their leave application; and employees taking their
leave of absence for the purpose of seeking employment abroad. All these cases
prejudice the interest of the service and, therefore, should be stopped immediately.

In view hereof, the following guidelines on vacation leave application as embodied in CSC
Resolution No. 84-034, and implemented in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 2 current
series, with some modifications to suit the needs of the Office of the President, are hereby
adopted for implementation in this Office, effective immediately:

1. Leave of absence for any reason other than illness of an officer or employee or any
member of his family must be contingent upon the needs of the service. Hence, the
approval or disapproval of application for vacation leave is discretionary, always based
on the needs of the service. The office/unit head concerned shall recommend for approval
only vacation leave applications which are absolutely necessary and will not prejudice the
interest of the service. The mere filing of vacation leave application will not authorize the
officer or employee concerned to go on leave immediately. He or she has to wait for the
action to be taken on the application.

2. An officer or employee who is absent without approved leave shall not be entitled to
receive his salary corresponding to the period of his unauthorized leave of absence, but
this absence shall not be deducted from his accredited leave credits, if there are any.

6. Before going on vacation leave of absence, the Officer or employee concerned shall see to it
that his application for leave has been approved by proper authorities. The Personnel Officer
shall furnish the said officer or employee with copy of his approved or disapproved application.
Per verification from the Courts Clerk of Court, Ms. Fernandez did not file any prior leave of absence
for November 4 to 6, 1998 as required by law."13 (Emphasis supplied)

We note that the complaint does not indicate whether the absence of respondent on said dates was
meant to be a vacation or due to illness. In either case, the governing rules are found in Rule XVI of
the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, to wit:

Sec. 49. Period within which to act on leave application. - Whenever the application for leave of
absence, including terminal leave, is not acted upon by the head of agency or his duly authorized
representative within five (5) working days after receipt thereof, the application for leave of absence
shall be deemed approved.

Sec. 50. Effect of unauthorized leave. - An official/employee who is absent without approved leave
shall not be entitled to receive his salary corresponding to the period of his unauthorized leave of
absence. It is understood, however, that his absence shall no longer be deducted from his
accumulated leave credits, if there is any. (Emphasis supplied).

Sec. 51. Application for vacation leave. - All applications for vacation leave of absence for one (1) full
day or more shall be submitted on the prescribed form for action by the proper head of agency five
(5) days in advance, whenever possible, of the effective date of such leave. (Emphasis supplied).

Sec. 52. Approval of vacation leave. - Leave of absence for any reason other than illness of an official
or employee or of any member of his immediate family must be contigent upon the needs of the
service. Hence the grant of vacation leave shall be at the discretion of the head of department/agency.

Sec. 53. Application for sick leave. - All application for sick leave of absence for one full day or more
shall be made on the prescribed form and shall be filed immediately upon employees return from such
leave. Notice of absence, however should be sent to the immediate supervisor and/or to the agency
head. Application for sick leave in excess of five (5) successive days shall be accompanied by a proper
medical certificate.

Sick leave may be applied for in advance in cases where the official or employee will undergo medical
examination or operation or advised to rest in view of ill health duly supported by a medical
certificate.

An ordinary application for sick leave already taken not exceeding five days, the head of department
or agency concerned may duly determine whether or not granting of sick leave is proper under the
circumstances. In case of doubt, a medical certificate may be required.

Sec. 54. Approval of sick leave. - Sick leave shall be granted only on account of sickness or disability
on the part of the employee concerned or of any member of his immediate family.

Based on Section 51, as quoted above, whether or not an application for vacation leave is filed five
days in advance, the head of the agency, in this case herein complainant Judge, has the discretion to
approve or disapprove the application.

The reason for the requirement that employees applying for vacation leave, whenever possible, must
submit in advance their applications for vacation leave, is to enable heads of offices to make the
necessary adjustments in the work assignments among the staff so that work may not be hampered
or paralyzed.14 However, it is clear from the above-quoted rules that mere failure to file a leave of
absence in advance does not ipso facto render an employee administratively liable. In case the
application for vacation leave of absence is filed after the employee reports back to work but
disapproved by the head of the agency, then, under Section 50 as quoted above, the employee shall
not be entitled to receive his salary corresponding to the period of his unauthorized leave of absence.
The unauthorized leave of absence becomes punishable only if the absence is frequent or habitual
under Section 23 (q), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations or detrimental to
the service under Section 23 (r) or the official or employee falsified his daily time record under Section
23 (a) or (f) of the same Omnibus Civil Service Rules.

In this case, complainant Judge merely alleged that respondent did not file any prior leave of absence.
This, we find insufficient to discipline respondent. There is no claim or evidence showing that
respondent did not file her leave of absence after reporting for work, or that complainant Judge
disapproved her leave of absence, or that her absence was inimical to the interest of public service, or
that she falsified her daily time record to cover up her absence. Moreover, the absences of respondent
occurred two years apart which can hardly be categorized as frequent or habitual.

Sections 53 and 54 provide for the action to be taken by the agency head in case of application for
sick leave. In the present case, it does not appear in the complaint that the absence of herein
respondent was due to illness.
“his non filing of leave of absence shall not automatically render
such employee administrative liable; that what the law punishes is if
the absence is habitual; that respondents absences are authorized
for being unacted after five days; that complainant is fully aware of
her leave and the acting vice mayor is SB Member Cunanan; that
the ten million project was only approved last July 26, 2019; that the
flight of respondent from manila to busuanga on August 3, 4, 6 were
cancelled due to bad weather, that complainant issued policy that
all disbursement and voucher shall be signed and approved by the
mayor and not him. Same issues were propsed by the respondent
and will On the position paper of respondent did not violate the civil
service omnibis rules on leave as provided by section 51 of CSC
Resolution 983142 verbatimly quoted as follows:
“Sec 51. Application for vacation leave
All applications for vacation leave of absence for one (1) full
day or more shall be submitted on the prescribed form for action by
the proper head of agency five (5) days in advance, whenever
possible, of the effective date such leave. (Amended by CSC MC
No. 41, s.1998)

However the word whenever possible says that application for

vacation leave could be filed even less than the given five day
period. Thus the three day filing of leave substantially complied and
legally satisfied the rule. Assuming arguendo that respondent failed
to file the application for leave five days before, will not
automatically held him liable

The reason for the requirement that employees applying for

vacation leave, whenever possible, must submit in advance their
applications for vacation leave, is to enable heads of offices to
make the necessary adjustments in the work assignments among the
staff so that work may not be hampered or paralyzed.14 However, it
is clear from the above-quoted rules that mere failure to file a leave
of absence in advance does not ipso facto render an employee
administratively liable. In case the application for vacation leave of
absence is filed after the employee reports back to work but
disapproved by the head of the agency, then, under Section 50 as
quoted above, the employee shall not be entitled to receive his
salary corresponding to the period of his unauthorized leave of
absence. The unauthorized leave of absence becomes punishable
only if the absence is frequent or habitual under Section 23 (q), Rule
XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations or detrimental
to the service under Section 23 (r) or the official or employee falsified
his daily time record under Section 23 (a) or (f) of the same Omnibus
Civil Service Rules.

Similarly, an application for vacation leave of absence filed after the

employee reports back to work but disapproved will not expose
employee from administrative liability but he shall not be entitled to
receive his salary corresponding to unauthorized absences as
provided by same jurisprudence.

Application for leave was deemed approved by operation of law on

account of inaction of the proper head of agency pursuant to par
b, sec 47 of RA 7160. The complainant failed to act on his
application for vacation leave within five days (b) Whenever the
application for leave of absence is not acted upon within five (5)
working days after receipt thereof, such application shall be
deemed approved.

for frequent absenteeism pursuant to sec 22 (q) of omnibus rules that

an officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered
habitually absent if he incurs unauthorized absences execeeding the
allowanle 2.5 days monthly leave credit under the leave law for at
least e months in a semester or at least 3 consecutive months.
Assuming that the leaves were unauthorized, he should have
incurred absences more than 2.5 days for months of July, August or
September.
Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose.40 It is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or
standard of behavior and to constitute an administrative offense, the misconduct should relate to or
be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.41 It is a
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or
gross negligence by a public officer.42

There are two (2) types of misconduct, namely: grave misconduct and simple misconduct. In grave
misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest.43 Without any of these
elements, the transgression of an established rule is properly characterized as simple misconduct
only.44

Gross neglect of duty is defined as "[n]egligence characterized by want of even slight care, or by
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 the consequences, insofar as other persons may be
affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to
their own property."54 In contrast, simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee or official to
give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a "disregard of a duty resulting from
carelessness or indifference."55 - G.R. No. 213500

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and THE FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU (FFIB),

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO), Petitioners
vs
PS/SUPT. RAINIER A. ESPINA, Respondent