61. ESPIA v.

CERUJANO, 550 SCRA 107 (2008)

(Aspects of the Proceedings)
Miguel Cerujano, Alfredo Tingkingco, and Senecio Cerujano Jr. were convicted for
Robbery in Band with Multiple Homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Samar and
imposed upon them the death penalty which was then commuted by the Court to
reclusion perpetua upon review. Jesus Clarito Espia, a Prosecutor of the Office of the
Public Prosecutor of Lao-ang, Northern Samar, filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on
the ground that the Anti-Subversion Law had already been repealed. The trial court
granted the petition.
Cerujano, Tingkingco, and Cerujano, Jr., thus filed an administrative complaint for
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against Espia. After investigation,
the Secretary of Justice found Espia liable for grave misconduct and recommended to
the President his dismissal from the service with the corresponding accessory penalties.
On March 30, 1999, President Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 62 dismissing
Espia from service. Espia then filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals
but the same was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Espia can be held liable for grave misconduct under a charge of
conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of his service
HELD:
Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service may or may not be
characterized by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard
established rules. Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description
of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of conduct grossly prejudicial to the
best interest of the service, although the Court has considered the following acts or
omissions, among others, as such: misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of
office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, failure to safe keep public
records and property, making false entries in public documents and falsification of court
orders.
The record does not show that any of the additional elements to qualify the charge of
conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service to grave misconduct had
been established. However, the Motion to Dismiss signed by petitioner does not absolve
him of liability. The Espias reliance on the trial judges assurance that the Motion to
Dismiss would touch only on the Anti-Subversion Law aspect of the case betrays his
ignorance. For even if the accused therein were indeed members of the New Peoples
Army, they were charged not for Subversion but for Robbery in Band with Multiple
Homicide.