Grave Misconduct Work-related [1] 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 and established by substantial evidence. Grave Misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of Simple Misconduct. Thus, a person charged with Grave Misconduct may be held liable for Simple Misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.1 [2] It is regarded as grave when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules are present.2 [3] To constitute misconduct, the act or acts must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties.3 [4] It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer, must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties, amounting either to administration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office. 4 [5] As to whether or not, such misconduct of petitioner affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not only his character as a private individual. 5 Not work-related [1] If a government officer or 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, because by reason of his government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service.6 [2] Causes which warrant the dismissal of a civil servant need not necessarily be workrelated or committed in the course of the performance of duty by the person charged.7

1 2

Ampil v. Espenesin, G.R. No. 192685, July 31, 2013. Id. 3 Largo v. Court of Appeals, 537 SCRA 721 (2007). 4 Sarigumba v. Pasok, 155 SCRA 646 (1987). 5 Palma, Sr. v. Fortich, G.R. No. L-59679, January 29, 1987. 6 Remolana v. Civil Service Commission, 362 SCRA 304 (2001); citing Nera v. Garcia, 106 Phil. 1031 (1960). 7 Bernardo v. Civil Service Commission, 429 SCRA 285 (2004).