Grave Misconduct

A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of the established rule are present. While great respect is accorded to the factual findings of administrative agencies that misconduct was committed, but no substantial evidence was adduced to support the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of the established rule, then the offense cannot be characterized as grave. It is only simple misconduct.

Government Employee's Plea of Privacy

The Supreme Court has recently held that the search by the government of an employee's office computer in connection with an investigation into work-related misconduct does not violate the employees constitutional right to privacy. 

The search was occasioned by an anonymous letter-complaint to the Civil Service Commission accusing the petitioner of lawyering for the parties with pending cases with the Civil Service Commission. The CSC Chairperson issued a Memorandum directing the Investigating Team to conduct investigation and specifically "to back up all the files in the computers found in the Mamayan Muna and Legal Divisions." It was found out that most files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner were draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative cases in the Civil Service Commission and other tribunals. The Supreme Court found tenable the CSC's argument that the warrantless search of the computers was justified since "these furnished the easiest means for the employee to encode and store documents. Concomitantly, the ephemeral nature of computer files, that is, they could easily be destroyed at a click of a button, necessitated drastic and immediate action." The Court further held that there was no violation of petitioner's right to privacy as this was negated by the CSC's policy regulating the use of office computers in its Memorandum No. 10, series of 2002 that put its employees on notice that they have no expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on the office computers (Pollo v. David, G.R. No. 181881. October 18, 2011).

"Bar Ops" Banned

Bar Operations, such as setting up of streamers, send offs, and cheering squads are banned within the vicinity of the University of Santo Tomas, the venue of the 2011 Bar Examinations this November 6, 13, 20 and 27. 2011 Bar chairperson Justice Roberto A. Abad has directed that the streets surrounding the University of Santo Tomas campus (Dapitan St., P. Noval St., España Boulevard, and Lacson Avenue) remain open to traffic for all four sundays of the Bar Examinations. Six Thousand Two Hundred (6,200) law graduates have been cleared by the Supreme Court to take this year's Bar Exams, which for the first time will be held in November as well as feature multiple-choice questions..

Good Luck to the 2011 Bar Examinees.

first time on appeal; error of judgement

Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. It is well settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule.

When a court, tribunal or officer has jurisdiction over the person and subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of said jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgement. Procedural rules and jurisprudence emphatically declare that errors of judgement are not proper subjects of a special action for certiorari.

The submission of proof of payment of disturbance compensation is not jurisdictional as to deprive the DAR the power to act on an application for exemption.

TRO against a Fellow Judge

The Supreme Court recently fined a Regional Trial Court judge for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop a Sheriff from enforcing the Writ of Execution by another Regional Trial Court judge. The SC ruled that the judge who issued the TRO clearly ignored the principle of judicial stability as the writ of execution sought to be restrained was issued by a co-equal court. The SC also held that the respondent judge should have refrained from acting on the petition for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for TRO because the RTC who issued the writ retains jurisdiction to rule on any question on the enforcement of the writ of execution. The Court further ruled that if the Sheriff committed any irregularity or exceeded his authority in the enforcement of the writ, the proper recourse was to file a motion, or an application for relief from the same court which issued the decision, not from any other court, or to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari. 

Rectifying this error by eventually dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction is not a defense that respondent judge can use. "His lack of familiarity with the rules in interfering with the acts of a co-equal court undermines public confidence in the judiciary through his demonstrated incompetence," the Court stressed.

The SC En Banc found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.