Section 52(A)(20), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service

classifies conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as a grave offense. It is punishable by
suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and by dismissal for the
second offense.
The Rules do not provide a definition or enumerate acts that constitute conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service. In general, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service refers to
acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish
the peoples faith in the Judiciary.
LEGAL NOTE 0023: WHAT IS MISCONDUCT AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT? HOW DO YOU PROVE
MISCONDUCT AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT?
SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. CLAUDIO M. LOPEZ (A.M. NO. P-10-2788,
18 JANUARY 2011, CORONA, C.J.) SUBJECT: QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN ADMIN
CASES; DEFINITION OF MISCONDUCT AND WHEN IT IS GRAVE. (BRIEF TITLE: OCA VS. LOPEZ).
x- x
LOPEZ, A COURT PROCESS SERVER WAS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA. ADMIN
CHARGE WAS FILED AGAINST HIM. SC RULED HE COMMITTED GRAVE MISCONDUCT.
WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?
The Court defines misconduct as a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. 8
WHAT IS GRAVE MISCONDUCT?
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 established by substantial
evidence.9
As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the
law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave
misconduct.
WHAT IS CORRUPTION?
Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary
person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for
himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.

MUST GRAVE MISCONDUCT BE A CRIME?

No.
An act need not be tantamount to a crime for it to be considered as grave misconduct as in
fact, crimes involving moral turpitude are treated as a separate ground for dismissal under the
Administrative Code.10
We agree with the findings and recommendation of both the Investigating Judge and the OCA
that respondent committed grave misconduct which, under Section 52 (A)(3), Rule IV of the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the
first offense.
WHAT IS REQUIRED TO PROVE GRAVE MISCONDUCT.
Only substantial evidence is required.
As correctly pointed out by the Investigating Judge, to sustain a finding of administrative
culpability, only substantial evidence is required. The present case is an administrative case,
not a criminal case, against respondent. Therefore, the quantum of proof required is only
substantial evidence.
WHAT IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion. Evidence to support a conviction in a criminal case is not
necessary, and the dismissal of the criminal case against the respondent in an administrative
case is not a ground for the dismissal of the administrative case. We emphasize the well-settled
rule that a criminal case is different from an administrative case and each must be disposed of
according to the facts and the law applicable to each case.7
=============================================
=============================================
=============================================
ADDITIONAL NOTES (OCTOBER 2011 CASE):
SOURCE: MONICO K. IMPERIAL, JR. VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (G.R. NO.
191224, 04 OCTOBER 2011, BRION, J.) SUBJECTS: GRAVE MISCONDUCT; SIMPLE MISCONDUCT,
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; PENALTIES FOR MISCONDUCT; EXAMPLES OF CLEAR DEFIANCE OF
THE LAW AND PROCEDURES (BRIEF TITLE: IMPERIAL VS. GSIS)

PETITIONER WAS ADJUDGED BY GSIS, SSC AND CA AS GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT? WAS
THIS RULING CORRECT?
NO. NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED TO SUPPORT THE ELEMENTS OF
CORRUPTION, CLEAR INTENT TO VIOLATE THE LAW OR FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF
ESTABLISHED RULE THAT MUST BE PRESENT TO CHARACTERIZE THE MISCONDUCT AS GRAVE.
PETITIONER ONLY COMMITTED SERIOUS LAPSE OF JUDGMENT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD HIM LIABLE
FOR SIMPLE MISCONDUCT.
Thus, the petitioners liability under the given facts only involves simple misconduct. As Branch
Manager of the GSIS Naga Field Office, he is presumed to know all existing policies, guidelines
and procedures in carrying out the agencys mandate in the area. By approving the loan
applications of eight GSIS Naga Field Office employees who did not fully meet the required
qualifications, he committed a serious lapse of judgment sufficient to hold him liable for simple
misconduct.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
BUT PETITIONER COMMITTED SUCH OFFENSE TWICE ALREADY. CAN HE BE NOT CONSIDERED TO
HAVE COMMITTED FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF ESTABLISHED RULE?
NO. THERE MUST BE DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF THE RULES. THE CSCS FINDINGS ON THE
PETITIONERS ACTIONS PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE LOANS NEGATE THE PRESENCE OF ANY
INTENT ON THE PETITIONERS PART TO DELIBERATELY DEFY THE POLICY OF THE GSIS. FIRST,
GSIS BRANCH MANAGERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE PAST THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE
LOAN APPLICATIONS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED REQUIREMENTS OF GSIS; SECOND, THERE WAS A
CUSTOMARY LENIENT PRACTICE IN THE APPROVAL OF LOANS EXERCISED BY SOME BRANCH
MANAGERS NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTING GSIS POLICY; AND THIRD, THE PETITIONER FIRST
SOUGHT THE APPROVAL OF HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR BEFORE ACTING ON THE LOAN
APPLICATIONS. THESE CIRCUMSTANCES RUN COUNTER TO THE CHARACTERISTIC FLAGRANT
DISREGARD OF THE RULES THAT GRAVE MISCONDUCT REQUIRES.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?
AN INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING OR A DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF A RULE OF LAW OR
STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR.
XXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHEN IS MISCONDUCT GRAVE?

A MISCONDUCT IS GRAVE WHERE THE ELEMENTS OF CORRUPTION, CLEAR INTENT TO VIOLATE
THE LAW OR FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF ESTABLISHED RULE ARE PRESENT.[1][21] OTHERWISE, A
MISCONDUCT IS ONLY SIMPLE.
Misconduct has a legal and uniform definition. Misconduct has been defined as an intentional
wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a
government official.[2][20] A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent
to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are present.[3][21] Otherwise, a
misconduct is only simple.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
GIVE EXAMPLES OF JURISPRUDENCE WHEN THERE HAS BEEN OPEN DEFIANCE OF A CUSTOMARY
RULE.
AS FOLLOWS:
Flagrant disregard of rules is a ground that jurisprudence has already touched upon. It has
been demonstrated, among others, in the instances when there had been open defiance of a
customary rule;[4][23] in the repeated voluntary disregard of established rules in the procurement
of supplies;[5][24] in the practice of illegally collecting fees more than what is prescribed for
delayed registration of marriages;[6][25] when several violations or disregard of regulations
governing the collection of government funds were committed;[7][26] and when the employee
arrogated unto herself responsibilities that were clearly beyond her given duties.[8][27] The
common denominator in these cases was the employees propensity to ignore the rules as
clearly manifested by his or her actions.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR SIMPLE MISCONDUCT?
SUSPENSION FOR ONE MONTH AND ONE DAY TO SIX MONTHS FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE AND
DISMISSAL FOR THE SECOND OFFENSE.
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
BUT PETITIONER HAS COMMITTED THE OFFENSE TWICE. WHY SHOULD HIS PENALTY BE NOT
DISMISSAL?
BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROPORTIONATE TO THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF HIS TRANSGRESSION.

The Revised Uniform Rules of the Civil Service (Civil Service Rules) classifies simple misconduct
as a less grave offense. Under Section 52(B) (2), Rule IV of the Civil Service Rules, the
commission of simple misconduct is penalized by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day
to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense.
While records show that this is not the petitioners first offense as he was previously suspended
for one (1) year for neglect of duty, we believe that his dismissal would be disproportionate to
the nature and effect of the transgression he committed as the GSIS did not suffer any prejudice
through the loans he extended; these loans were for GSIS employees and were duly paid for.
Thus, for his second simple misconduct, we impose on the petitioner the penalty of suspension
from the lapse of his preventive suspension by GSIS up to the finality of this Decision. [9][28]