What constitutes grave misconduct?
Grave Misconduct has not been defined by our law. Luckily, our jurisprudence is pregnant of cases which could guide us into determining what constitutes grave misconduct.
The leading case goes as far back as March 20, 1922, In Re: Impeachment of Honorable Antonio Horrilleno, quoted as follows:
The grounds for removal of a judge of first instance under Philippine law are two: (1) Serious misconduct and (2) inefficiency. The latter grounds is not involved in these proceedings. As to the first, the law provides that "sufficient cause" must exist in the judgment of the Supreme Court involving "serious misconduct." The adjective is "serious;" that is, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The noun is "misconduct;" that is, a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. The word "misconduct" implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error or judgment. For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. (Lawlor vs. People [1874], 74 Ill., 228; Citizens' Insurance Co. vs. Marsh [1861], 41 Pa., 386; Miller vs. Roby [1880], 9 Neb., 471; Smith vs. Cutler [1833], 10 Wend. [N.Y.], 590; U.S. vs. Warner [1848], 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16643; In re Tighe [1904], 89 N.Y. Suprr., 719.)The above-mentioned case has been cited in numerous subsequent administrative cases.
