GRAVE MISCONDUCT

1.   My lawyer shared the case of  Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas and Emily Rose Ko Lim Chao v. Mary Ann T. Castro, G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015, the Supreme Court says;

We point out that to constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. The respondent in the present case summoned the SWAT for a purely personal matter, i.e., to aid her brother and sister-in-law. There was no link between the respondent’s acts and her official functions as a city prosecutor. In Manuel v. Judge Calimag, Jr., the Court explained that:

x x x Misconduct in office has been authoritatively defined by Justice Tuazon in Lacson v. Lopez in these words: "Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer x x x 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 x x x."

 I will always deny the allegations against me by the Complainants. However, upon the clarification made by my lawyer, the acts complaint of do not constitute Grave Misconduct because the said statements that allegedly maligned the Complainants are purely personal and do not affect the performance of their duties