Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service explained; G.R. No. 165132

G.R. No. 165132

"x x x.

We cannot likewise agree with the CA’s findings that Dr. Apolonio’s acts constitute merely as conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.  In Manuel v. Judge Calimag, Jr.,[61] we held, viz.:

Misconduct in office has been authoritatively defined by Justice Tuazon in Lacson v. Lopez in these words: "Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer x x x[.] It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office x x x[.] More specifically, in Buenaventura v. Benedicto, an administrative proceeding against a judge of the court of first instance, the present Chief Justice defines misconduct as referring ‘to a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer.’” [emphasis supplied, citations excluded]

Therefore, if a nexus between the public official’s acts and functions is established, such act is properly referred to as misconduct.  In Dr. Apolonio’s case, this nexus is clear since the approval of the cash advance was well within her functions as NBDB’s executive officer.[62] 

Contrast her situation, for example with the case of Cabalitan v. Department of Agrarian Reform,[63]  where we held that “the offense committed by the employee in selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume Program exemption cards to his officemates during office hours was not grave misconduct, but conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.”  Further contrast Dr. Apolonio’s case with Mariano v. Roxas,[64] where “the Court held that the offense committed by a [CA] employee in forging some receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations, was not misconduct but conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service because her acts had no direct relation to or connection with the performance of her official duties.” 

CONCLUSION

          Thus, we hold that Dr. Apolonio is guilty of simple misconduct.  Although her actions do not amount to technical malversation, she did violate Section 89 of PD 1445 when she approved the cash advance that was not authorized by the NBDB’s Governing Board.  Further, since the approval of the cash advance was an act done pursuant to her functions as executive officer, she is not merely guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. 

x x x."