As culled from the foregoing, a finding of grave misconduct should not straightjacket the Court. While there is no doubt that misfeasance and malfeasance in office are not to be countenanced, each case must be decided with due consideration of all the attendant circumstances. In other words, compassion will be extended in favor of the deserving, but those who are not must meet the full force of the law. Equitable justice, after all, demands that erring public officers, regardless of rank and stature, be meted out penalties commensurate to the offenses they commit. XXX
All told, equitable and humanitarian considerations dictate that the Ombudsman and the CA committed a reversible error in ordering Moreno's dismissal from the service. As elaborately put in Duque III,[41] the Court, in resolving administrative cases, must strike a balance between public accountability, the noble spirit behind the punishment meted out to an erring civil servant, and social justice, the principle that allows for the attenuation of said punishment based on the factual milieu of a given case. Here, Moreno, through the surrounding circumstances, has merited the Court's sympathy, therefore, justifying the mitigation of his liability. It must, however, be emphasized that this decision should not be construed as indiscriminate condonation of official transgression. Public officers, so long as our Constitution prevails, will remain to be accountable to the People,[42] and the Court, as a bastion of democracy, will not hesitate to put to the proverbial sword those who betray the trust of the public they are meant to serve.
All told, equitable and humanitarian considerations dictate that the Ombudsman and the CA committed a reversible error in ordering Moreno's dismissal from the service. As elaborately put in Duque III,[41] the Court, in resolving administrative cases, must strike a balance between public accountability, the noble spirit behind the punishment meted out to an erring civil servant, and social justice, the principle that allows for the attenuation of said punishment based on the factual milieu of a given case. Here, Moreno, through the surrounding circumstances, has merited the Court's sympathy, therefore, justifying the mitigation of his liability. It must, however, be emphasized that this decision should not be construed as indiscriminate condonation of official transgression. Public officers, so long as our Constitution prevails, will remain to be accountable to the People,[42] and the Court, as a bastion of democracy, will not hesitate to put to the proverbial sword those who betray the trust of the public they are meant to serve.
No comments:
Post a Comment