Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 243 views

    Respondent vs. Admonish

    Uploaded by

    Doo Ra
    Respondent was reprimanded by NAPOLCOM rather than exonerated. A reprimand is considered an administrative penalty under civil service rules and jurisprudence, whereas a warning or admonition is not. Reprimand involves a public and formal censure for a fault, making it more severe than a warning. Since respondent received a reprimand, he is not entitled to back salaries for the period of his suspension, as suspended members are only paid upon full exoneration or acquittal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Respondent vs. Admonish

    Uploaded by

    Doo Ra
    243 views1 page
    Respondent was reprimanded by NAPOLCOM rather than exonerated. A reprimand is considered an administrative penalty under civil service rules and jurisprudence, whereas a warning or admonition is not. Reprimand involves a public and formal censure for a fault, making it more severe than a warning. Since respondent received a reprimand, he is not entitled to back salaries for the period of his suspension, as suspended members are only paid upon full exoneration or acquittal.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent was reprimanded by NAPOLCOM rather than exonerated. A reprimand is considered an administrative penalty under civil service rules and jurisprudence, whereas a warning or admonition is not. Reprimand involves a public and formal censure for a fault, making it more severe than a warning. Since respondent received a reprimand, he is not entitled to back salaries for the period of his suspension, as suspended members are only paid upon full exoneration or acquittal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    243 views1 page

    Respondent vs. Admonish

    Uploaded by

    Doo Ra
    Respondent was reprimanded by NAPOLCOM rather than exonerated. A reprimand is considered an administrative penalty under civil service rules and jurisprudence, whereas a warning or admonition is not. Reprimand involves a public and formal censure for a fault, making it more severe than a warning. Since respondent received a reprimand, he is not entitled to back salaries for the period of his suspension, as suspended members are only paid upon full exoneration or acquittal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Respondent was 

    not exonerated by NAPOLCOM but was reprimanded. Can a reprimand then be equated with
    exoneration? Or, with "warning" or "admonition", which under the former Revised Civil Service Rules, is not to be
    considered a penalty?

    A negative answer is called for.

    A warning, in ordinary parlance, has been defined as "an act or fact of putting one on his guard against an
    impending danger, evil consequences or penalties," while an admonition, "refers to a gentle or friendly reproof, a
    mild rebuke, warning or reminder, counselling, on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice
    or warning".   They are not considered as penalties. A reprimand, on the other hand, is of a more severe nature,
    15

    and has been defined as a public and formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a person in fault by his
    superior officer or a body to which he belongs.   It is more than just a warning or an admonition.
    16

    A reprimand is an administrative penalty although it may be a slight form of penalty. Section 1, Rule VIII of the
    Police Manual on the subject of Discipline includes reprimand as a "discipline punishment." It is the last in the
    scale of graduated penalties that may be imposed in administrative cases list in Memorandum Circular No. 8,
    series of 1970, paragraph II, of the Civil Service Commission under the subject of "Guidelines in the Application
    of Penalties in Administrative Cases and Other Matters Relative Thereto." It is a penalty that may be imposed for
    a light offense.   The same Circular further provides that "the penalty of reprimand must be in writing",   and that
    17 18

    "the penalty of reprimand shall not carry with it any administrative liability."   The Civil Service Decree (PD No.
    19

    807) promulgated on October 6, 1975, also lists reprimand as one of the impossable penalties.   In fact,
    20

    reprimand as provided for in said Circular, has been imposed as a penalty by this Court in Administrative Case
    No. P-167, Mendoza vs. Eclavea.  21

    The conclusion is inevitable then that since respondent was reprimanded, and reprimand being a penalty, he is
    not entitled to his back salaries for the period during which he was under suspension. A suspended member of
    the Police force is so entitled only upon exoneration or acquittal. 
    22

    Respondent's argument that he was reprimanded not for the offense of Bribery and Corrupt Practices but merely
    for improper conduct in the settlement of a criminal case, hence, he was cleared of any graft or corrupt practices,
    is pueril. The act for which he was reprimanded was the same act which gave rise to the charge of Bribery.
    While the evidence was insufficient to convict him for the latter offense, his act was nonetheless considered
    improper and called for the penalty of reprimand.

    You might also like