DISHONESTY

In Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution 06-0538, issued

on April 4, 2006, dishonesty is defined as the concealment or
distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to
defraud, cheat, deceive or betray and intent to violate the truth.

Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil

Service (RRACCS) promulgated on November 8, 2011, by the CSC,
administrative offenses are classified into grave, less grave or
light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the
government service.

Thus, under Section 46, Rule 10 of RRACCS, serious dishonesty

is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service. less
serious dishonesty, while considered also as a grave offense,
is punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one
year for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the
second offense. Finally, simple dishonesty is a less grave
offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day
to six months for the first offense; six months and one day to
one year for the second offense; and dismissal for the third offense.

http://archives.pia.gov.ph/?
m=12&sec=reader&rp=1&fi=p060719.htm&no=7&date=07/19/20
06

The new rules on classifying the offense of dishonesty, contained in CSC Resolution No.060538, spell out
parameters that would guide disciplining authorities in charging the proper offense. It is hoped, David said, that after
due process, proper penalty shall be imposed based on factual circumstances.

According to David, the offense ofSerious Dishonesty under the new rules would involve the presence of
any one of the following attendance circumstances: a) The dishonesty act caused serious
damage and grave prejudice to the government; b) The respondent gravely
abused his authority in order to commit the dishonest act; c) Where the
respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly involves
properly, accountable forms or money for which he is directly accountable and
the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption;
d) The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the respondent; e)
The respondent employed fraud or falsification of official documents in the
commission of the dishonest act related to his or her employment; f) The
dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasion; or g) the
dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination irregularity or fake Civil
Service eligibility such as impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets.
Circumstances wherein the dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government that is not so serious as to
qualify under Serious Dishonesty, and wherein the respondent did not take advantage of his or her position in
committing the dishonest act would only constitute Less Serious Dishonesty, David explained.

Dishonest acts that did not cause damage or prejudice to the government as well as those with no direct relation to or
do not involve the duties and responsibilities of the respondent would make up for Simple Dishonesty. The same is true
for dishonest acts that did not result in any gain or benefit to the offender; and where the information falsified is not
related to employment in case of falsification of official document.

Section 3. Serious Dishonesty. The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in
the commission of the dishonest act would constitute the offense of Serious Dishonesty:

a. The dishonest act causes serious damage and grave prejudice to the government.

b. The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the dishonest act.

c. Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly involves property,
accountable forms or money for which he is directly accountable and the respondent shows an
intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption.

d. The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the respondent.

e. The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of
the dishonest act related to his/her employment.

f. The dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions.

g. The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination, irregularity or fake Civil Service
eligibility such as, but not limited to, impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets.

h. Other analogous circumstances. (Emphasis supplied)

Simple dishonesty, on the other hand, comprises the following offenses:

Section 5. The presence of any of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the
dishonest act would constitute the offense of Simple Dishonesty:

a. The dishonest act did not cause damage or prejudice to the government.

b. The dishonest act had no direct relation to or does not involve the duties and responsibilities
of the respondent.

c. In falsification of any official document, where the information falsified is not related to his/her
employment.

d. That the dishonest act did not result in any gain or benefit to the offender.

e. Other analogous circumstances. (Emphasis supplied)

Since her application for sick leave was supported by a false medical certificate, it would have been
improperly filed, which made all of her absences during this period unauthorized. The receipt, therefore,
of her salaries during this period would be tantamount to causing damage or prejudice to the
government since she would have received compensation she was not entitled to receive.

This act of causing damage or prejudice, however, cannot be classified as serious since the information
falsified had no direct relation to her employment. Whether or not she was suffering from hypertension is
a matter that has no relation to the functions of her office.

Given these circumstances, the offense committed can be properly identified as less serious dishonesty.
Under Section 4 of Resolution No. 06-0538, less serious dishonesty is classified by the following acts:

Section 4. The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the
dishonest act would constitute the offense of Less Serious Dishonesty:
 a. The dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government which is not so serious as
to qualify under the immediately preceding classification.

b. The respondent did not take advantage of his/her position in committing the dishonest act.

c. Other analogous circumstances. (Emphasis supplied)

David said Simple Dishonesty is punishable by suspension from one month and one day to six months on first offense,
and from six months and one day to one year on second offense. On third offense, simple dishonesty is punishable by
dismissal from the service.

For Less Serious Dishonesty, penalties include suspension from six months and one day to one year on first offense,
and dismissal from the service on second offense. The penalty for Serious Dishonesty, David stressed, is outright
dismissed from the service.

Meanwhile, the CSC chief, citing CSC Resolution No.061009, clarified that the rules on dishonesty shall not apply to
cases already decided with finality prior to its effectivity. David also said all pending dishonesty cases or those filed
within three years after its effectivity shall be labeled as Serious Dishonesty. This however is without prejudice to the
finding of the proper offense after termination of the investigation. (CSC XI/PIA) [top]

CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF

PUBSERVICE

"an unwarranted act of an employee, which act unduly

compromises or prejudices the best interest of the service or
evinces lack of dedication or commitment to public service"
(Cuanzon, Geraldine A., CSC Resolution No. 07-0853 dated May 3,
2007

cSC Resolution No. 06-2177 dated December 5, 2006 (Villaviza.

Dinnah c.. et at.\

On the other hand, the administrative offense of Conduct

Prejudicial to the Best
lnterest of the Service covers a wide range of acts or omissions,
through which a govemment
employee, either deliberately or by mere ignorance or negligence,
effectively compromises
the integrity and efficiency of the government service.s
SEC. 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award. -
The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force
and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of
ten (10) days from the date thereof,

ARIAS, FREDERICK I.
Under the doctrine of finality of judgment, a decision that has
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, It may no
longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant
to correct erroneous conclusion of fact and law.
No. Decision No. 150861, November 24, 2015

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required to

establish malfeasance
is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but substantial evidence,
i.e.,lhat amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion (VidallonMagtolis
vs. Salud, 469 SCRA 439

CSC vs. Rabang (G.R. No. 167763, March 14, 200g)

Gross Neglect of Duty or gross negligence refers to negligence

characterized by 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, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the
omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless
men/women never fail to give to their own property. In cases
involving. public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach
of duty is flagrant and palpable.