Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of

behavior, especially by a government official. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct

should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public
officer. (ROBERTO M. VILLANUEVA vs COURT OF APPEALS and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Represented by ROBERTO P. AZCUNA, NAZARENO, in his capacity as Secretary General, G.R. No. 167726,
2006). In grave misconduct as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear
intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest. (CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION vs JOSE J. LUCAS, G.R. No. 127838, 1999).

Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who
unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for
another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs ROLANDO S.
MIEDES, SR, G.R. No. 176409, 2008).

Respondent is not guilty of Grave Misconduct because the act of transferring the complainant to the
Bulwang Information Center was not an act of intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of
law or standard of behavior. Such act of respondent was made in order to heed the request of additional
manpower sent in a letter dated October 3, 2018 by Russel Baldumar, OIC of the Bulwang Information
Center.

Moreover, it should also be noted that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary
for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept
as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is
reasonable ground to believe that a person is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if
such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-
VISAYAS AND EMILY ROSE KO LIM CHAO vs MARY ANN T. CASTRO, G.R. No. 172637, 2015).

Here, there is no evidence presented by the complainant that the transfer was made by the respondent
to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.
Hence, the element of corruption is absent.