Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
- no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Jurisprudence, however, is instructive
on this point. The Court has considered the following acts or omissions, inter alia, as
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: misappropriation of public
funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice,
failure to safe keep public records and property, making false entries in public
documents and falsification of court orders.
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_140519_2001.html#fnt3)
- This refers to acts which deprive the government of a committed service. (2nd
Quarterly Seminar & Meeting (July 26-29, 2017) Philippine Association for
Government Budget Administration (PAGBA) L Fisher Hotel, Bacolod City)
Neglect of Duty
- Neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task
expected of him and is censurable under the Civil Service Rules.
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_140519_2001.html#fnt3)
- Refusal is unreasonable, duty included in his job description.
- Just cause for disciplinary action.
Gross Neglect
- Gross Neglect of Duty, on the other hand, denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or
unwillingness of a person to perform a duty (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition, pp.
832 and 1184.)
- The Court has categorized the following as constitutive of the grave offense of Gross
Neglect of Duty:
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_140519_2001.html#fnt14)
o Negligence in the prosecution of cases and malicious delay in the
administration of justice by a police officer (Martinez vs. Municipal Mayor of
Labason, 103 Phil. 634(1958))
o Act of provincial warden in retaining a prisoner in his custody without
authority and just cause instead of sending him to the Muntinlupa
penitentiary (People vs. Tan, 19 SCRA 433 (1967).)
o Failure to transcribe stenographic notes of 18 cases which dated as far back
as 1972 (Ceniza-Guevarra vs. Magbanua, A.M. No. P-94-1107, 304 SCRA 113
(1999))
o Failure of a judge to decide a case within a period fixed by law (Saylo vs.
Judge Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1225 April 12, 2000.)
o Exerting undue influence by a deputy clerk of court on a judge in the
disposition of cases pending before the court (Zari vs. Flores, 94 SCRA 317
(1979))
Simple Neglect
- signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_140519_2001.html#fnt14 citing
Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996 edition, at p. 324.)
- The Court has decided the following, inter alia, as constituting the less grave offense
of Simple Neglect of Duty:
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_140519_2001.html#fnt14)
o delay in the transmittal of court records
o delay in responding to written queries
o delay of more than one (1) year and seven (7) months in furnishing a party
with a copy of the court's decision.
o As can be gleaned from the foregoing cases, mere delay in the performance
of one's function has been consistently considered as a less grave offense of
simple neglect of duty, punishable by suspension without pay for one (1)
month and one (1) day to six (6) months.
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_140519_2001.html#fnt14)
- Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give his or her
attention to a task expected of him. It signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from
carelessness or indifference.
(https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_204738_2015.html citing
Escobar vda. de Lopez v. Luna, 517 Phil. 467, 479 (2006).)
- Escobar vda. de Lopez v. Luna:
o clerk of court guilty of simple neglect of duty for causing the delay in the
implementation of the writ of execution and suspended him from office for
one (1) month and one (1) day. (Ayo v. Violago-Isnani)
o sheriff guilty of "failure/refusal to perform official duty" for failing to
implement a writ of execution and suspended him for three (3) months
without pay. (Alvarez v. Martin)
o sheriff guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to implement writs of execution
in several civil cases and imposed against him a fine of P10,000.00.
Misconduct
- Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.
- To be considered misconduct in office, transgression must have been done while in
the performance of duties
o Largo vs CA, CSC, NPC and Olandesca, G.R. No. 177244, November 20, 2007
citing Manuel vs Calimag, Milanes vs. De Guzman, Amosco vs Magro, Apiag vs
Cantero
o Ganzon vs. Arlos, G.R. No. 174321, October 22, 2013
- In Grave Misconduct, as distinguished from Simple Misconduct, the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules,
must be manifest.”
Nera vs Garcia, 106 Phil 1031; Bernardo vs CA, GR No. 124261, May27, 2004; Remalona vs.
CSC, 414 Phil 590
If a government officer employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave
misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his office, they
affect his right to continue in office. The government cannot tolerate in its service a
dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well x x x.
Refusal to Perform Official Duty
o Failure to process documents & complete action on documents and papers
within a reasonable time from preparation thereof
o Failure to attend to anyone who wants to avail himself/herself of the
services of the office
o Failure act promptly and expeditiously on public transactions
“Any act, conduct of officer or tribunal under a duty to perform, signifying intention not to
perform…” [Word & Phrases, Volume 36-A, Copyright, 1962]
Gross Insubordination
- Is a deliberate and willful refusal to comply with a lawful request or order of a higher
authority. It involves disregard of proper authority and a refusal to obey that
authority, a willful disrespect of it.” (SOBREPEÑA,Carmelita G., CSC Resolution No.
001288, May 30, 2000 citing HARVEY, Tammang A., CSC Resolution No. 98-2225
August 21, 1998)
CSC Resolution No. 1701077-2017 Rule on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
government officials and employees who may be found in violation of Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service for the first time will be suspended for six months and one
day up to one year," she said, adding that a second offense will mean dismissal from service.
Neglect of Duty may likewise apply if the Office concerned has no established office rules.
