Grave Misconduct, Simple Misconduct and Dishonesty (Philippines)

Answer Summary

Under Philippine administrative law, misconduct and dishonesty are distinct offenses with different elements and penalties. Misconduct is a transgression of an established and definite rule of action by a public officer—unlawful behavior or gross negligence. It remains simple unless the qualifying elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules are proved by substantial evidence; if any one of those qualifying elements is present, it becomes grave. Dishonesty, by contrast, requires an intent to deceive or defraud—the concealment or distortion of truth—and need not be committed in the performance of official duties. Serious dishonesty exists only where enumerated attending circumstances are shown; otherwise the dishonest act is simple or, in an intermediate category, less serious.

The governing rules are the 2025 RACCS (CSC Resolution No. 2500357), Sections 63 and 64, for classification and penalties, and the CSC Memorandum Circular No. 013, s. 2021, the source the Commission footnotes for the graduated classification of dishonesty now set out at Section 64.B of those Rules. The leading decisions are G.R. No. 221506, G.R. No. 214081 (10 April 2019), A.M. No. CA-15-31-P, and G.R. No. 230260. Accessory penalties are governed by Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 17-03.

The critical elements are: (1) grave misconduct requires an established-rule transgression related to official functions plus at least one of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules, all proved by substantial evidence; (2) dishonesty requires concealment or distortion of truth plus intent to deceive, and becomes serious only when enumerated attending circumstances exist; and (3) first-offense penalties are dismissal for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, suspension for simple misconduct and simple dishonesty, with accessory penalties following dismissal.

The most common reasons a grave offense is reduced or a dishonesty charge fails are: absence of a nexus to official duties (G.R. No. 165223; the April 2024 decision retrieved as G.R. No. 258888); mere procedural lapses without corrupt motive or willful defiance (G.R. Nos. 244042, 244043, and 243644; G.R. No. 215994); and failure to prove malicious intent or damage in SALN misdeclaration cases (G.R. No. 238903; G.R. No. 225669).

On the current legal regime, the penalty schedule is that of the 2025 RACCS (CSC Resolution No. 2500357), in force since 4 August 2025, whose Section 156 expressly repealed the 2017 RACCS; the dishonesty gradations it carries at Section 64.B originate in CSC MC No. 013, s. 2021. The most recent decisions the search surfaced—Judicial Integrity Board v. Aviles, A.M. No. SC-25-007 (2026) and A.M. No. P-25-292 (2026)—are recent but not the closest authority on the classification issues; they confirm that the search reached current jurisprudence.

Section I — Issue Overview

1. Distinguishing grave misconduct, simple misconduct, and dishonesty — What legal definitions and markers separate these administrative offenses? This is foundational because the correct classification determines the penalty and the evidence burden.

2. Elements that escalate simple misconduct to grave misconduct — When do corruption, clear intent to violate the law, flagrant disregard of established rules, and the requirement that the act relate to official duties make misconduct grave? This is the most commonly contested issue in the retrieved cases.

3. Distinguishing serious from simple dishonesty — What attending circumstances elevate a dishonest act from simple to serious dishonesty? This controls whether the first-offense penalty is dismissal or suspension.

4. Penalties and accessory penalties — What penalties attach for a first offense, and what accessory consequences follow dismissal? This is the practical bottom line for lawyers advising clients or agencies.

Section II — Legal Analysis

Issue 1: How are grave misconduct, simple misconduct, and dishonesty distinguished under Philippine administrative law governing government officers and employees?

Applicable law. The 2025 RACCS (CSC Resolution No. 2500357) classifies misconduct and dishonesty as administrative offenses at Section 63. The civil service legal framework is anchored in the Presidential Decree No. 807 and the Administrative Code of 1987. The Republic Act No. 6713 supplies the underlying ethical baseline. For dishonesty classification, the CSC Memorandum Circular No. 013, s. 2021 introduced that graduated classification; it is now carried, and operative, at Section 64.B of the 2025 RACCS.

Analysis. Misconduct and dishonesty are not interchangeable. Misconduct is defined in the jurisprudence as:

“a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.” (Estrella M. Domingo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 236050, June 2020)

As G.R. No. 221506 explains, misconduct is simple when the transgression lacks aggravating circumstances, and grave when corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules is shown by substantial evidence. Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct; if the qualifying elements are not proved, the respondent may still be held liable only for simple misconduct (Millado; G.R. No. 214081, 10 April 2019). Thus, the distinction between grave and simple misconduct is not the existence of a transgression but the presence or absence of the three qualifying circumstances.

Dishonesty is separate and distinct. It is defined as:

“the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity,” or the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter relevant to one’s office or connected with the performance of duty. (Domingo, G.R. No. 236050; G.R. No. 238903)

The key difference between misconduct and dishonesty is intent to deceive or defraud. G.R. No. 239978 states that misconduct is an improper transgression of rules, while dishonesty requires a disposition to deceive. A mere misdeclaration, for example, does not automatically amount to dishonesty unless there is malicious intent to conceal the truth.

A further distinction is the official-duty nexus. Misconduct must generally relate to the performance of official functions, while dishonesty need not be committed in the course of official duties. In G.R. No. 137473, the Court held that a government employee may be disciplined for dishonest private conduct because it affects fitness for public office and the government cannot tolerate dishonest officials. This doctrinal difference matters because the grading and proof requirements differ: grave misconduct is about willful, corrupt, or flagrant rule-breaking connected to the office, whereas dishonesty is about deceitful concealment or falsification, whether in or out of office.

Issue 2: What are the elements that qualify misconduct as grave, including corruption, clear intent to violate the law, flagrant disregard of established rules, and the requirement that the act relate to official duties?

Applicable law. The operative standard is developed in Supreme Court case law, not in the civil service rules themselves: the 2025 RACCS (CSC Resolution No. 2500357) lists grave and simple misconduct as offenses but nowhere defines either. The qualifying elements are:

1. There is a transgression of an established and definite rule of action—unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.
2. The act relates to or is connected with the performance of the public officer’s official functions.
3. At least one qualifying circumstance exists: corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.
4. The qualifying circumstance must be manifest and established by substantial evidence.
5. The misconduct must not be trifling; it must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment.

The requirement that the misconduct be serious is emphasized in the April 2024 decision retrieved as G.R. No. 258888:

“to warrant dismissal, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling; it must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment.”

Analysis. The three qualifying elements—corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and flagrant disregard of established rules—are alternative, not cumulative. Proof of any one elevates simple misconduct to grave misconduct.

Corruption occurs when an official or fiduciary person unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure a benefit for himself or another, contrary to duty and the rights of others (Domingo, G.R. No. 236050; G.R. No. 258888). In the 2024 decision, an Ombudsman official who demanded and received money in exchange for fixing cases used his position to obtain a benefit; that was a clear act of corruption supporting grave misconduct. By contrast, G.R. Nos. 244042, 244043, and 243644 held that mere procedural deviations in procurement, without proof that the official acted for personal or selfish ends or caused undue injury, do not amount to grave misconduct. Similarly, in G.R. No. 215994, the absence of corruption or willful intent to violate the law reduced the offense to simple misconduct.

Clear intent to violate the law requires willful, not merely erroneous, conduct. In G.R. No. 169449, a municipal assessor’s acts of sexual harassment showed a clear intent to violate the law and flagrant disregard of established rules, warranting grave misconduct. In G.R. No. 220700, public school officials who entered an unauthorized lease of school premises and mishandled public funds were liable for grave misconduct because they acted with clear intent to violate the law and in flagrant disregard of rules on local government authority, procurement, and public accountability. Conversely, in G.R. No. 260148, a police officer’s use of excessive force during an arrest was only simple misconduct because corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and flagrant disregard of established rules were not proved.

Flagrant disregard of established rules means open defiance or persistent disregard of well-known legal rules or office regulations. In G.R. No. 174321, a DILG employee who pointed a loaded firearm at his superior during a Christmas party was guilty of grave misconduct because the act was connected to his official duties—it arose from resentment over a performance rating—and occurred within office premises. In A.M. No. 439-MJ, however, a judge’s alleged failure to pay a personal debt was not grave misconduct because the alleged act was purely personal, unrelated to judicial office, and not shown to be corrupt or in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules.

The official-duty nexus is equally important. Misconduct must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer’s official functions; without that nexus, the charge fails, and the proper designation may instead be conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service (G.R. No. 258888). In G.R. No. 165223, the charge of grave misconduct failed because the act of handing over a letter was innocuous, lacked connection to official duties, and did not involve corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. The nexus requirement, however, is not purely temporal. Ganzon shows that an act committed outside regular working hours may still be connected to official duties if it arises from an employment-related matter and takes place within office premises.

Where the qualifying circumstances are absent, the result is simple misconduct, not acquittal from administrative liability. This flows from the inclusion principle explained in Millado and San Diego: grave misconduct includes simple misconduct, so the proved lesser offense may be imposed.

Issue 3: How is serious dishonesty distinguished from simple dishonesty in the context of administrative law for government employees?

Applicable law. The current classification is set out at Section 64.B of the 2025 RACCS, carrying forward the CSC Memorandum Circular No. 013, s. 2021, applied by the Court in G.R. No. 230260. The earlier CSC Resolution No. 06-0538 was applied in A.M. No. CA-15-31-P The rules classify dishonesty into serious, less serious, and simple.

Serious dishonesty exists when at least one of the following attending circumstances is present:

1. The dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the government, such as tarnishing the integrity of the office or affecting its operations.
2. The respondent gravely abused authority to commit the act.
3. The respondent, if an accountable officer, committed the act directly involving property, accountable forms, or money for which he or she is accountable, with intent to gain, graft, or corruption.
4. The act exhibits moral depravity, even if committed outside official duties.
5. The act involves a civil service examination irregularity or fake civil service eligibility, such as impersonation, cheating, or use of crib sheets.
6. The act relates to the respondent’s employment, such as misrepresentation of qualifications, education, experience, training, or eligibility, or submission of fake or spurious credentials.

Simple dishonesty, by contrast, covers dishonest acts without those aggravating circumstances—for example, acts with no direct relation to the respondent’s duties that caused no damage to the government, falsification of documents not related to employment that caused no damage, or acts where the respondent did not take advantage of position and obtained no personal gain. Simple dishonesty must not involve moral depravity, because moral depravity makes the dishonesty serious.

Less serious dishonesty falls between the two, covering acts causing damage or prejudice to the government that is not so serious as to qualify as grave, acts involving money or property restituted by a non-accountable officer, or acts where the respondent took advantage of position but not for personal gain (Ventura).

Analysis. The central distinction is not merely the presence of a false statement, but the presence of aggravating factors that elevate the dishonest act to a grave offense (Ventura). Intent is decisive. Serious dishonesty requires malicious intent to deceive or defraud; good-faith errors or inadvertent omissions are not enough. In San Diego, the absence of proof of malicious intent led the Court to reduce grave charges. In Braña and G.R. No. 225669, SALN misdeclaration was held not to be automatically serious dishonesty where the alleged undisclosed wealth was explained and no intent to deceive was proven.

The employment-credential category is strictly applied. The Civil Service Commission’s guidance, as shown in Fake credentials an offense of serious dishonesty – CSC, treats misrepresentation of qualifications and submission of fake eligibility or credentials as serious dishonesty. The Court likewise applied that rule in Civil Service Commission v. Dampilag, available at lawyerly.ph. Dianco illustrates the classification framework for employees who falsify or conceal in relation to their positions.

Thus, the practical inquiry for serious versus simple dishonesty is whether any enumerated aggravating circumstance is proved. If yes, the act is serious; if not, and if the act remains dishonest but falls below the intermediate criteria, it is simple.

Issue 4: What are the penalties for grave misconduct, simple misconduct, and dishonesty for a first offense, and what accessory penalties follow dismissal under the Civil Service Rules and Supreme Court decisions?

The penalties in the retrieved materials are:

• Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service even for a first offense (G.R. No. 155732; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 63.A.1(f) and (l)).
• Less Serious Dishonesty is punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.
• Simple Misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.
• Simple Dishonesty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense, six months and one day to one year for the second offense, and dismissal for the third offense.

Dismissal from the service carries accessory penalties: cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service (Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 17-03). The Court has also included a bar from taking civil service examinations (G.R. No. 238903). Where the respondent has already been separated from the service, the penalty of dismissal may be converted into forfeiture of benefits, disqualification from public office, a fine, and an order of restitution (A.M. No. P-25-292).

Analysis. The penalty structure is offense-specific and repeat-offense-specific. For first offenses, the most consequential distinction is between grave offenses—which lead to dismissal—and less grave offenses—which lead to suspension. A respondent charged with grave misconduct may receive only the penalty for simple misconduct if the qualifying elements are not proved, because grave misconduct necessarily includes simple misconduct (Millado). Likewise, a charge of serious dishonesty may result in a lesser dishonesty penalty where the attending circumstances are absent but the act remains dishonest (Ventura; Braña).

Accessory penalties are automatic upon dismissal and are not discretionary. They operate to bar the respondent from returning to government service through any route, including re-employment and civil service examination eligibility. The conversion rule in Denso is significant for respondents who resigned or were separated before formal dismissal: dismissal may be converted into monetary forfeiture, disqualification, fine, and restitution, ensuring the disciplinary consequence survives separation.

The recent 2026 rulings surfaced in this search—Judicial Integrity Board v. Aviles, A.M. No. SC-25-007, and A.M. No. P-25-292—reaffirm the disciplinary framework but are not the closest authority on misconduct and dishonesty classification. Denso does directly illustrate the accessory-penalty conversion after separation.

Section III — Comparative Analysis of Divergent Rulings

Divergent outcomes on this issue. The cases split on whether a proved violation of administrative, audit, or civil service rules is grave misconduct or only simple misconduct where there is no direct proof that the respondent personally profited. Both lines apply the same disjunctive rule—grave misconduct requires corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules—but they reach opposite results on the strength of the evidence. One line downgrades to simple misconduct when the proof shows only breach without the qualifying elements: G.R. No. 221506 (violation of Auditing Code §75 without ill motive or clear intent); G.R. No. 249135 (cash-advance irregularities but no corruption, willful intent, or flagrant disregard); G.R. No. 248037 (appointment irregularity but official invited PSB members, negating willful intent); G.R. No. 260148 (excessive force during arrest without corruption, clear intent, or flagrant disregard); see also G.R. No. 165223 (grave charge dismissed where act lacked the required connection to official duties). The decisive deficiency in this line is the absence of evidence of the officer’s mens rea or conscious defiance. The opposite line treats clear or repeated known violations as grave misconduct even without personal gain: G.R. No. 220700 held an unauthorized lease and misuse of school funds violated RA 7160 §18 and COA rules and disregarded the lower court’s good-faith/no-corruption finding; G.R. No. 229882 found repeated breaches of expenditure restrictions showed flagrant disregard; G.R. No. 169449 found clear intent to violate RA 7877; G.R. No. 174321 found service-connected firearm misconduct grave. In these, the decisive fact was not personal profit but knowledge of duty plus open or repeated defiance of a clear legal rule.

Strategic implication. To secure a simple-misconduct classification, a lawyer must prove the absence of all three grave-misconduct elements—no corruption, no clear intent to violate a known rule, and no flagrant disregard—by presenting good faith, remedial steps, or official practice. The opposing side will steer the case toward grave misconduct by showing the officer knew the governing rule and breached it openly or repeatedly, arguing that the breach itself satisfies flagrant disregard even without personal gain.

Section IV — Descriptive Statistics of the Relevant Cases

Section V — Action Plan & Evidence Guide

Strategy Guide

The outcome-determinative question in administrative misconduct and dishonesty cases is whether the evidence establishes not just a rule violation, but one of the qualifying elements—corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules—for grave misconduct, or malicious intent for serious dishonesty, as opposed to a lesser or good-faith breach.

1. Qualifying Element Threshold (Grave Misconduct or Serious Dishonesty) The strongest position is secured by showing that the respondent’s act involved corruption, clear intent to violate law, or flagrant disregard of rules, or—on dishonesty charges—malicious intent to deceive. This threshold is decisive: G.R. No. 229882, G.R. No. 169449, and G.R. No. 174321 upheld grave misconduct where evidence showed repeated or open defiance of known legal duties, even absent personal gain; G.R. No. 89454 and G.R. No. 155732 imposed dismissal for acts involving fraudulent documents and intent to deceive.

2. Absence of Qualifying Element (Simple Misconduct or Less Serious Dishonesty) Conversely, a party seeking to mitigate liability must show the absence of all qualifying elements—no corruption, no willful or flagrant defiance, and no malicious intent. G.R. No. 221506, G.R. No. 249135, and G.R. No. 248037 demonstrate that where evidence supports only an unintentional or technical breach, courts downgrade to simple misconduct or simple negligence. Supporting facts include good faith, remedial actions, or official practice.

3. Official-Duty Nexus Requirement The act must arise from or be connected to official duties for either misconduct or dishonesty to attach. G.R. No. 165223 and G.R. No. 174321 illustrate that lack of nexus is fatal to the charge. Parties must clearly establish (or negate) the connection between the act and the respondent’s employment.

4. Controlling Rules and Penalty Schedule The applicable penalty is determined by the rules in effect at the time of the act. Practitioners must confirm whether the CSC Resolution No. 1701077 or 2025 RACCS governs, as this affects both classification and accessory penalties.

5. Procedural Due Process Courts consistently require that respondents are accorded due process—notice and opportunity to be heard—as seen in G.R. No. 155732 and other cases. Failure here can result in modification or reversal of penalties regardless of the substantive merits.

Evidence Guide

The following evidentiary items have proven decisive in establishing or negating liability in the retrieved cases:

• Documented Rule Violation and Official Duties Documentary proof such as appointment papers, service records, and university or agency memoranda directly established the respondent’s functions and the existence of a rule or policy transgressed (G.R. No. 89454, G.R. No. 206661). These items were critical in confirming the official-duty nexus and the clarity of the rule allegedly violated.

• Proof of Intent or Qualifying Circumstance Evidence of repeated or knowing violation—such as multiple fraudulent documents over several years (G.R. No. 89454), conflicting SALN declarations (G.R. No. 206661), or audit findings showing open defiance of rules (G.R. No. 229882)—was decisive in establishing clear intent, flagrant disregard, or malicious intent. Conversely, affidavits and counter-affidavits supporting good faith or lack of wrongful motive led to downgrading or dismissal (G.R. No. 221506, G.R. No. 249135, G.R. No. 248037).

• Financial and Property Records SALNs, TCTs, vehicle registrations, and corporate stock records were used to show concealment, unexplained wealth, or misrepresentation (G.R. No. 206661). Where the evidence showed a pattern of asset concealment or false declarations, courts found serious dishonesty.

• Audit Reports and Disbursement Records Special audit reports, disbursement vouchers, and procurement documents substantiated or negated findings of corruption, misuse of public funds, or irregular transactions (G.R. No. 177657, G.R. No. 215994, G.R. No. 220700). The presence or absence of supporting documents for expenditures was often determinative.

• Testimonial Evidence Corroborating or Refuting Key Facts Affidavits from complainants, witnesses, and co-workers were used to establish who performed the act, the respondent’s role, and the presence or absence of intent (G.R. No. 155732, G.R. No. 220700). Corroborative testimony was especially important where documentary evidence was ambiguous.

• Prior Administrative Records Evidence of prior offenses or lack thereof, such as service records and records of previous penalties, affected penalty computation and whether the act was treated as a first or repeat offense (2025 RACCS, Secs. 63 and 64, CSC MC No. 013, s. 2021).

• Procedural Records Proof of compliance with notice and hearing requirements—such as copies of the complaint, answer, and hearing transcripts—was necessary to sustain any penalty (G.R. No. 155732).

In sum, practitioners should collect full documentary and testimonial records that directly address the qualifying elements, official-duty nexus, and procedural regularity, as these have repeatedly proven decisive in the courts’ classification and disposition of misconduct and dishonesty cases.

⚠️ This is AI-generated legal research for reference only. It does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed Philippine attorney before making important legal decisions.

Editorial currency note (16 August 2026). The civil service disciplinary rules in force are the 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — CSC Resolution No. 2500357, promulgated 30 April 2025, published in the Daily Tribune on 19 July 2025 and, by its Section 159, effective 4 August 2025. Its Section 156 repeals the 2017 RACCS (CSC Resolution No. 1701077 dated 3 July 2017) together with all issuances inconsistent with it. The Intellegal Editorial Board verified each of these particulars against the text of the resolution as published by the Civil Service Commission. Six passages stating the governing rule and its penalty citations were corrected on 15 August 2026 against secondary evidence, and three more on 16 August 2026 once the Commission’s own text was obtained; the latter three place the graduated classification of dishonesty where it is now operative, at Section 64.B of these Rules, rather than in the 2021 circular that introduced it. One of the corrections is an attribution: the qualifying elements of grave misconduct come from Supreme Court case law, not from the civil service rules, which classify the offence without defining it — in the 2025 RACCS the word “misconduct” appears only as an offence label, and no provision defines it. The sources listed below are those the research run retrieved; the 2025 text was not among them, and this note records the difference rather than concealing it.

References

Law

• Civil Service Decree of the Philippines or Civil Service Law of 1975 (Presidential Decree No. 807, 6 October 1975

• Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713, 20 February 1989

• 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) (CSC Resolution No. 1701077, 3 July 2017

• Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), 25 July 1987

• Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 07), 10 April 1990

• Amendment of Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07 (Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 17-03, 15 September 2003

• Revised Rules on the Administrative Offense of Dishonesty (CSC Memorandum Circular No. 013, s. 2021, 27 July 2021

Jurisprudence

, G.R. No. 155732, 3 June 2004- Civil Service Commission v. Dampilag — lawyerly.ph

• Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, G.R. No. 155732, 3 June 2004

• Committee on Security and Safety v. Dianco, A.M. No. CA-15-31-P, 16 June 2015

• Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service v. Ventura, G.R. Nos. 230260 & 231831, 6 February 2023

• Estelito V. Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 137473, 2 August 2001

• Generoso Amosco v. Judge Adriano O. Magro, A.M. No. 439-MJ, 30 September 1976

• Herminio A. Besmonte v. National Police Commission-NCR, G.R. No. 260148, 3 April 2024

• Hyacinth N. Grageda v. Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau, G.R. Nos. 244042, 244043, and 243644, 18 March 2021

• Office of the Court Administrator v. Denso, A.M. No. P-25-292, 28 January 2026

• Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon v. Eufrocina Carlos Dionisio, G.R. No. 220700, 10 July 2017

• Office of the Ombudsman v. Braña, G.R. No. 238903, 24 March 2021

• Office of the Ombudsman v. Millado, G.R. No. 221506, 16 June 2021

• Office of the Ombudsman v. Rodas, G.R. No. 225669, 23 March 2022

• Office of the Ombudsman v. Rolando B. Faller, G.R. No. 215994, 6 June 2016

• P/Insp. II Gilbert C. San Diego v. Fact-Finding Investigation Committee, G.R. No. 214081, 10 April 2019

• Provincial Government of Bukidnon v. Pancrudo, G.R. No. 239978, 3 April 2019

• Rolando Ganzon v. Fernando Arlos, G.R. No. 174321, 22 October 2013

• Teresita G. Narvasa v. Benjamin A. Sanchez, Jr., G.R. No. 169449, 26 March 2010

• Winston F. Garcia v. Mario I. Molina, G.R. No. 165223, 11 January 2016