SC V Delgado Digest
SC V Delgado Digest
SC V Delgado Digest
intent to violate the law or disregard of established rules, which must be proved by substantial
evidence.
In addition, under Rule IV, Section 52(A) (3) of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies Grave Misconduct as a grave offense
punishable with Dismissal even in its first commission.
The Court ruled that the fact that respondents Madeja and Florendo merely induced the removal
of, but did not actually remove, the missing pages from the subject Agenda, do not make their
liability any less than that of respondent Delgado. The removal of the Agenda pages was
undoubtedly done for the benefit of respondents Madeja and Florendo. Thus, the cajoling
employed by respondents Madeja and Florendo is as much a part of the Grave Misconduct as
the act of removing the Agenda pages itself. As to their liability, therefore, Respondents Madeja
and Floredo must stand in equal footing with respondent Delgado.
This Court had already held that the conduct and behavior of all officials and employees of an
office involved in the administration of justice, from the highest judicial official to the lowest
personnel, requires them to live up to the strictest standard of honesty, integrity and uprightness
in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
The respondents palpably failed to meet the high standard expected from them as court
employees. Their conduct is neither excusable nor tolerable. The respondents, through their
acts, have proven themselves to be unfit for continued employment in the judiciary.
Hence, they are administratively liable for grave misconduct.