Case Digest: ESPIÑA v. CERUJANO, et al.

JESUS CLARITO ESPIÑA v. MIGUEL CERUJANO, et al.

550 SCRA 107 (2008)

Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service does not necessarily include the elements of grave misconduct.

Miguel Cerujano, Alfredo Tingkingco, and Senecio Cerujano Jr. were convicted for Robbery in Band with Multiple Homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Samar and imposed upon them the death penalty which was then commuted by the Court to reclusion perpetua upon review. Jesus Clarito Espiña, a Prosecutor of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Lao-ang, Northern Samar, filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on the ground that the Anti-Subversion Law had already been repealed. The trial court granted the petition.

Cerujano, Tingkingco, and Cerujano, Jr., thus filed an administrative complaint for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against Espiña. After investigation, the Secretary of Justice found Espiña liable for grave misconduct and recommended to the President his dismissal from the service with the corresponding accessory penalties. On March 30, 1999, President Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 62 dismissing Espiña from service. Espiña then filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals but the same was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Espiña can be held liable for grave misconduct under a charge of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of his service

HELD:

Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service may or may not be characterized by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules. Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, although the Court has considered the following acts or omissions, among others, as such: 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.

The record does not show that any of the additional elements to qualify the charge of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service to grave misconduct had been established. However, the Motion to Dismiss signed by petitioner does not absolve him of liability. The Espiña’s reliance on the trial judge’s assurance that the Motion to Dismiss would touch only on the Anti-Subversion Law aspect of the case betrays his ignorance. For even if the accused therein were indeed members of the New Peoples Army, they were charged not for Subversion but for Robbery in Band with Multiple Homicide.