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. 1 It
only makes sense that for an act fall within the ambit of Grave
Misconduct, it must have been done with bad faith or deliberate
intent to violate the law.

In a timeworn but instructive ruling in Camus vs. Civil Service

Board of Appeals2 of the Supreme Court, it defined misconduct as
“wrong or improper conduct” and gross has been held to mean
“flagrant or shameful”.

It must be reiterated that nothing is shown on the records of

the case that petitioner committed wrong and improper conduct.
Substantial evidence, as required by the rules to support the
decision rendered is lacking for the complainant was not able to
prove wrong or improper conduct of the petitioner and the City
Mayor.

Again, petitioner holds out that his action was legitimate. A

legitimate act can never constitute wrong or improper conduct, nor
flagrant or shameful act that would bring about liability. Even
assuming that there was a mistake in the interpretation of the law
which was the basis of the action of the petitioner, the same cannot
be construed to be malicious or grave. He is in good faith in his
acts. He has assumed an authority which he thought as within the
confines of the law. With this, there is no wrong or improper
conduct on his part, thus he should not be liable.

1
OCA vs. Lopez, A.M. No. P-10-2788, January 18, 2011; Vertudes v. Buenaflor, 514 Phil. 399,
424 (2005).
2
2 SCRA 370 [1961]
 Gross negligence is the want of even slight care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious
indifference to consequences as far as other persons are
concerned.3

Gross negligence “is the omission of that care which even

inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own
property4.”

3
Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman, 430 Phil 101, 115 (2002).
4
Sison, G.R. No. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010.