CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Pare asaumBATAN MEMORANDUM TO fl ALL CSC REGIONAL AND FIELD OFFICES SUBJECT : GREY-MIRANDA, Severina O. (Re: Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, Violation of Reasonable Office Rules, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service) The case of GREY-MIRANDA, Severina O. promulgated on September 22, 2015 was considered a Must-Read Decision during the August 4, 2015 Commission Meeting. The Commission deemed it must-read to inform/remind all the agencies that in an administrative case, there is no denial of due process so long as the respondent had the opportunity to explain his side. Thus, a Formal Charge which did not specify and describe on its face how the alleged administrative offenses were committed but nonetheless made reference to an attached Investigation Report, is deemed substantially compliant with the formal requirements of the rule. What was deemed necessary was that the Formal Charge was issued by the proper disciplining authority and that the attached Investigation Report was sufficient in providing the statement of facts and charges and adequate to equip the respondent with the information needed in formulating his defense. In view of the foregoing, you are advised to disseminate copies of the said CSC Decision No. 150715 to all agencies within your respective jurisdiction for their guidance and information, For strict compliance. Chairperson January 25, 2016 Enel: CSC Decision No. 150715 dated September 22, 2015 Minutes of the August 4, 2015 Commission Meeting (O1a3/Olad X44 XS6(vot 120-ems0116) Grey Miranda, S (Must Read Memo to ROs & Fs) Ina R.A.C.E. t0 Serve: Responsive, Accessible, Courteous and Effective Public Service [SCSC Building, 1BP Road, Constitution Hills, 126 Quezon City + 4931-7935/931-7939/931-8092 + B esephil@webmail.ese gov:ph + @ www.cse-gov.phCIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Pres aunAVAN BOVIS GREY-MIRANDA, Severina O. Number; 150715 Re: Gross Neglect of Duty; Grave Misconduct; Violation of Reasonable Office Rules; Promulgated: 22 SEP 2015 Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service (Appeal) (D-2014-11006) DECISION Severina O. Grey-Miranda (a.k.a. Angelita Ojastro Grey), former Section Head, Coverage and Collection Section, Social Security System (SSS), Makati City, files an Appeal from the Decision” dated April 29, 2014 issued by the SSS, finding her guilty of the administrative offenses of “Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and meting upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service including forfeiture of all benefits, perpetual disqualification from employment in the government service, and all other accessory penalties. Grey-Miranda filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 20, 2014 which the SSS denied in its Order dated July 18, 2014. Material portions of the Decision dated April 29, 2014 read, as follows: 2m “Based on both testimonial and documentary evidence, the latter consisting mainly of duly identified AFD Investigation Report x x x which formed as integral paris of the evidence-in-chief for the SSS vis-a-vis ‘respondents’ submissions and proffered evidence in refutation of the charges imputed against her, the acts and/or omissions and the correlative/collective ‘findings ax these relate to her can be summarized as follows, viz: ‘Under AFP Investigation Report dated April 17_2002 re_‘suspected fraudulent transactions’ involving Employer Account Goldland Security and Golden Goodies Pastries & Foodmart.’ “Uncontroverted evidence on record disclosed that subject respondent failed to make a proper assessment and disclosure on the actual employer account collectibles/delinquencies of employer Goldland Security when, ypon her official assumption as the Section Head of Coverage and Collection (Field Inspectorate) of the newly opened SSS Makati 2 (J.P. Rizal) Branch Office sometime in January 2000, she accepted the informal referral of co- respondent Olivia B. Castro x x x, former SSS employee handling the subject account at SSS Makati 1 Branch Office, without proper turnover of the records on 24 August 2000. xxx What was evident was the fact that erratic or CC hief Personnel Specialist Commission Secretariat & Liaison Office Ina RACE. to Serve: Responsive, Acessbl, Courteous and Effective Public Service [SCS Building, IBP Road, Constitution Hills, 1126 Quezon City + 931-7935/931-7939/931-8092 » B esepail@webmailcsc-gov.ph @ www.® Greyblivanda, Page 2of 13, intermittent employer payments were being made ostensibly 10 show compliance or delinquency payments and to address current individual emplayee complainants with the knowledge and under the care and protection of respondent Grey-Miranda to evade detection and discovery of the whole delinquency. Thus, the Certification dated 13 December 2000 re SS membership with recent payments made on 8 November 2000 for the applicable month July-September 1999 x x x that was caused 10 be issued by respondent Grey-Miranda in favor of subject employer. x x x. This fact of prior delinquencies were of course already made known to respondent Grey- Miranda but were never properly turned over to an Account Officer nor processed in accordance with existing procedure, There was no indication on whether or not she took efforts in further verifying past records of subject employer's earlier delinquencies and the consequent breach committed in its failure to comply with its obligations under previous approval installment ‘Plans, the latest being the Condonation of Penalties Program of the SSS in 1997 (per its Letter dated August 28, 1997) “Further investigations conducted by the AFD revealed that the same installment proposals, summary of payments, receipts of payments and certifications re payments were intended to be used as proofs of scedled payments/remittances of Goldland Security contribution delinquencies in support of an Undertaking (in liew of SSS Clearance) in securing a License 0 Operate and PNP Clearance as basis or justification for purposes of extending the Security Service Contract of subject employer with the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) which was then about to expire, and that payment of all its account delinquencies with the SSS was Jarthest from its real intentions. This was made more evident by the fact that apart from its previous delinquencies, no contribution payments or remittances were made starting January 2001 when it failed to secure the service contract after stringent bidding procedures on post-qualifications were adopted by the government x x x. Thus, respondent Grey-Miranda's inaction and indifference to our rules and procedures, bordering on her clear intention 10 accommodate or extend undue advantage and unwarranted benefit to subject employer is manifest. xxx “Clearly, respondent Grey-Miranda failed to observe proper procedures in treating the employer proposal on its delinquencies by having them comply with the conditions, documentations and procedural requirements before recommending and passing the same for approval/implementation in accordance with guidelines implementing Seciion 30 of Republic Act No. 1161 x x x. Despite knowledge of the apparent infirmities attendant to the said employer's proposals, respondent Grey- Miranda nevertheless pursued, passed-on the approval, and thereafier, implemented the same in wanton violation of its terms and conditions, the law, rules and regulations governing the same,Grey-Miranda, 8 Poge 3 of 13, “While no direct evidence of conspiracy or collusion to defraud the SSS was shown to exist in the case involving respondent Grey-Miranda, badges of fraud can nevertheless be inferred in her acts of misconduct in accommodating and giving unduehunwarranted benefits 10 subject employers in causing the conflicting assessments, the non-disclosure of the actual delinquencies; the ‘watering down’ or reduction of their delinquencies; and, the obvious inaction on the delinquencies to the damage and prejudice of their employees and the SSS. That established rules and procedures adopted and implemented by the SSS, more particularly, the Revised Inspectorate Manual of April 2000 x x x, among others, have been compromised/undermined is evident in respondent Grey- Miranda's malfeasance, misfeasance and non- Jeasance or the overall neglect, lack of care, diligence. ov prudence, in ‘performing duties enjoined by her job as Section Head, Field Inspectorate Section of the SSS, and as a public servant. There is gross neglect if the acts committed are flagrant or palpable as in the present case involving respondent Grey-Miranda. xxx “Under IAS-OFAD Audit Report dated 30 August 2002 re ‘erroneous RB transactions" involving various Employer Accounts xxx “Based on audit findings, of all twenty-five (25) R-8 transactions received, processed and approved by the branch covering the period January to December 2000, fourteen (14) have noted deficiencies x x x with the most significant observations pertaining to employers business operations tagged as retired or temporarily suspended in the SSS ER static database but upon further verifications/confirmations x x x proved to be active or operational ‘and all were received, processed, encoded, reviewed and approved by only one person, respondent Grey-Miranda x x x. xxx “The consequences and implications that_may be attributed 0 the foregoing violations are clearly remarkable. The erroneous tagging of ‘employer accounts through the SSS Form R-8 definitely resulted [in] the non- billing and non-collection of, plus inaccuracies on, employer delinquencies. The non-observance of delineated functions alone constitutes a clear breach or total absence of internal control measures.” On the other hand, the dispositive portion of the Order dated July 18, 2014, which was signed approved by President Emilio S. de Quiros, Jr. on July 23, 2014, reads: xr “WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 June 2014 filed by respondent through counsel be DENIED and the Decision dated 29 April 2014 rendered in the present case be UPHELD/AFFIRMED.” eo Hehe ene Coes PAJARE! ef Persoanel Specialist Cornmission Secretariat & Liaison OfficeIn her Appeal dated October 25, 2014 filed before this Commission, Grey-Miranda averred that due process has been denied her because the form and substance of the Formal Charge and the Decision are not in accordance with prescribed rules. She raised further that there is no evidence to show that she committed the acts for which she was found guilty of, Relevant portions of her Appeal read: xxx "9. As can be readily seen in the documents, the formal charge, contrary to the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACS), did not specifically state/describe how the offenses were allegedly committed. The formal charge merely referred to ‘attached copy of the Investigation Report of the Anti-Fraud Department dated April 17, 2002 under Case No. 02-0068-N00-01-05-N31 SSS Makati I, the Audit Report of the Operations and Financial Audit Department dated 30 October 2002 and the Audit Report of the Operations and Financial Audit Department dated 30 August 2002,’ xxx “13, The SSS Decision simply rendered a general judgement without any justification whatsoever for its finding. Appellant was denied the information why she is found guilty and must now grope in the dark to be able 10 prepare her appeal to this honorable Commission. The SSS decision does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based. This is in violation of the due process clause of the constitution because it denied appellant the opportunity to submit a credible appeal. Being worded in general terms, the SSS decision leaves the appellant unable to discern as to how the SSS decision was reached, and, is precisely prejudicial 1o her. She is unable to pinpoint the errors in the decision for review by the CSC or go through the processes of legal reasoning." xxx The antecedent facts of the case are, as follows: Grey-Miranda was the Section Head, Coverage and Collection Section, Social Security System (SSS), Makati City. The duties of her section include information dissemination work as part of the SSS’ coverage drive and performing inspectorate activities such as monitoring of employer's compliance with the SS Law, SSC Resolutions, SSS Circulars, Office Orders, Policies and Guidelines, Rules and Regulations. In particular, said Section is responsible for conducting periodic inspection of employer's records, conducting coverage and accounts verifications, providing delinquency assessments, preparing collection/ sending billing letters to employers, and referring delinquent accounts and other violations to its counsels for legal action. a lubtined True Copys 3 y ASARES fet Personnel Special ‘Commission Secrewrist & Liaison OfficeFR pections Foe Additionally, Grey-Miranda was also responsible for planning, directing, and supervising of the operations of the Membership Program and Field Inspectorate Teams under the branch operations. The case arose on October 19, 2001 when a certain Juliet R. Tuason-Bolinao, Team Head, Inspectorate, SSS, issued a Memorandum alleging that fraud attended the transactions of Grey-Miranda in connection with the delinquencies in the accounts of two (2) companies, namely, Goldiand Security Corporation of the Philippines (Goldland Security) and Golden Goodies Pastries and Foodmart (Golden Goodies). Allegedly, Grey-Miranda caused the withdrawal of @ complaint against Goldland Security. Also, it was alleged that Grey-Miranda was working to make it appear that Golden Goodies had ceased operations during the period covered by a pending legal action against it for delinquency payments. ‘The case was consequently referred to the SSS Anti-Fraud Department on January 9, 2002 for investigation. ‘The Anti-Fraud Department of the SSS issued its Investigation Report dated April 17, 2002, with subject “Suspect Fraudulent Transactions, Fieid Inspection Section, SSS Makati I, Said report overtly narrated the web of transactions surrounding the delinquency accounts of Goldland Security and Golden Goodies, which involve several employees of the SSS, including Grey-Miranda. Said Investigation Report yielded the following recommendations, as may be applicable to Grey-Miranda, thus: xxx “1. Administrative action against the following for gross negligence, ineptitude, and gross misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the SSS for collusion with Goldland Security Corporation of the Philippines thereby allowing it to escape payment of its delinquency; xxx ‘c. Ms. Severina Grey Mironda for the period from August 10 December 2000 and, for ‘uiiure 10 report and take the necessary action within a reasonable period of at least four months from receipi thereof the insiallment proposal of Goldland addressed and submited to her August 2000 to date, "2, Administrative action against Ms. Severina Grey Miranda x x x for the hasty withdrawal of the complaint filed against Goldland Security Corporation of the Philippines before the City Prosecutor of Makati on August 15, 2001. "3, Administrative action against Ms. Severina Grey Miranda in connection with an attempt to eliminate the delinquency of Golden Goodies and Pastries Food Mart, Inc. through an SSS Form Ké shich in effect would show that Golden Goodies had ceased operations in July 1995 despite overwhelming evidence 10 the contrary. Cj rtitiod "Trae Copyi ‘Chief Pereonael Specialist ‘Commission Seeretarint & Liaison OFiceA Grey-Miranda, Page 6 0f 13 “4. Administrative action against Ms. Severina Grey Miranda x x x for the ‘false FIR dated August 14, 2001 ““5, Administrative action against Ms. Severina Grey Miranda x x x for the false FIR dated August 25, 2001 ‘A separate audit was conducted by the Intemal Audit Service ~ Operation and Financial ‘Audit Department (IAS-OFAD), SSS, with the objective of ascertaining compliance with the prescribed procedures and documentation requirements pertaining to the collection process of employer delinquencies. The audit report was dated November 11, 2002 which essentially dovetails on the investigation findings of the Anti-Fraud Department. Another IAS-OFAD Audit Report dated August 30, 2002 discovered that of all twenty- five (25) SSS Form R-8 (Employer’s Data Amendment Form) transactions received, processed and approved by the branch covering the. period January to December 2000, fourteen (14) have noted deficiencies and all were received, processed, encoded, reviewed and approved by Grey-Miranda; The aforementioned steps were supposed to be performed by different individuals for check and balance purposes. The observations were for violations of Office Order No, 90-A and No, 127-A dated October 6, 1995 re: Delineation of Functions, Registration and Coverage, SSS Manual of Procedures re Process Narrative on Receiving and Screening of request for Employer Data Amendment Form (SSS Form R-8), Membership/Coverage and Field Inspectorate Manuals. Said violation resulted in non-filling and non-collection of, as well as inaccuracies on employer delinquencies. On the bases of these reports, Grey-Miranda was formally charged with Gross ‘Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, Violation of Office Rules and Regulations and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service by then SSS President and CEO Corazon de la Paz on November 13, 2002. The case went through a trial-type formal investigation. At the conclusion of the hearings, documentary exhibits were formally offered. Consequently, both parties had the occasion to file their respective Memoranda; Complainant SSS on August 23, 2013; and Grey-Miranda on December 20, 2013. After which, SSS issued the Decision dated April 29, 2014 finding Grey-Miranda guilty of the administrative offenses, as charged. Not happy with the Decision, Grey- Miranda filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 20, 2014, which the SSS denied per Order dated July 18, 2014. Hence, this Appeal, where the issue for resolution is whether there was denial of due process in this case for the alleged failure of the Formal Charge and the Decision to conform to the prescribed requirements. ‘The rule regarding the form and contents of a Formal Charge is provided under Section 20, Rule 5, Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), particularly, thus: CO xxx imi spy: i Gin os r ‘Commission Secretariat & Lizison OrTiceA Greyiranda, 8. Poge 7 of 13 “Section 20. Issuance of Formal Charge; Contents, — Afier a finding of a prima facie case, the disciplining authority shall formally charge the person complained of, who shall now be called as respondent. The formal charge shall contain a specification of chargels, a brief statement of material or relevant facts, accompanied by certified true copies of the documentary evidence, if any, sworn statements covering the testimony of witnesses, a directive to answer the charge/s in writing, under oath in not less than seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof, an advice for the respondent to indicate in his/her answer whether or not he/she elects a formal investigation of the charge/s, and a notice that he/she may opt 10 be assisted by a counsel of his/her choice.” Grey-Miranda contends that the Formal Charge dated November 13, 2002 issued to her failed to conform to the formal requirements of the above rule, and as a result thereof she was denied due process. Excerpts of the Formal Charge issued to Grey-Miranda read; xxx “FORMAL CHARGE “After a preliminary study of the attached copy of the Investigation Report of the Anti-Fraud Department dated 17 April 2002 under case No. 02- 0068-N00-OT-05-N31 SSS Makati Il, the Audit Report of the Operations and Financial Audit Department dated 30 October 2002 and the Audit Report of the Operations and Financial Audit Department dated 30 August 2002, this office finds that a prima facie case exists against you for GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT, VIOLATION OF OFFICE RULES AND REGULATIONS and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE xxx. “Wherefore, you are hereby required to file your answer under oath within seventy two (72) hours from receipt hereof why you should not be administratively disciplined. In your answer, you should indicate whether or not you elect to have a formal investigation of the charges against you. If in the affirmative, you may avail yourself of the services of counsel, to confront the witnesses against you and the production of documentary evidence in your favor through the compulsory process of subpoena duces tecum. xxx “(ogd.) CORAZON S. DE LA PAZ eo President and CEO” juntified True Copy! AJARES ef Personnel Specialist Commission Secretariat & Lisisoo OfficeGrey-Mirande, 5 Grey-Miranda argues that she was denied due process because the Formal Charge failed to specifically state or describe how the alleged offenses were committed as it merely made reference to the copy of the Investigation and Audit Reports attached to the Formal Charge, In addition, Grey-Miranda argues that the Decision dated April 29, 2014 did not conform to the form and substance required by the Constitution and the law and should, therefore, be declared as void and legally inexistent. She avers ‘that the Decision failed to state clearly the facts and the law on which it was based, in violation of the Constitution, the Rules of Court and relevant issuances of the Supreme Court. ‘The Commission finds these untenable. It is an elementary principle in law that due process is not denied so long as the respondent had the opportunity to explain his/her side. Thus, in the case of Ray Peter O. Vivo vs. PAGCOR (GR No. 187854, November 12, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that: xxx “The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as applied to administrative proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.” ‘A scrutiny of the contents of the Formal Charge reveals that it had substantially complied with the requirements of the rules. It was signed by the disciplining authority herself and had specifically stated that Grey-Miranda is directed to file her Answer, that she had the option to elect a formal investigation so she may confront the witnesses against her, and to avail herself of the services of a counsel. The fact that the Formal Charge merely attached the Investigation and Audit Reports which were made the bases in the finding of a prima facie case against Grey-Miranda, did not render the Formal Charge fatally defective for failure to specifically state the acts which constituted the offenses charged. ‘The reports attached to the Formal Charge sufficiently revealed that they were in fact explicit, exhaustive and sufficient in providing the statement of facts and charges and are adequate to equip Grey- Miranda with the information she will need in formulating her defense. With respect the Decision, this Commission finds it imperative to quote the ruling in the case of Mariano Velarde vs. Social Justice Society (GR No. 159357, April 28, 2004) where the Supreme Court had the occasion to state, thus: xxx “In general, the essential parts of @ good decision consist of the following: (1) statement of the case; (2) statement of facts; (3) issues or ‘assignment of errors; (4) court ruling, in which each issue is, as a rule, separately considered and resolved; and, finally, (5) dispositive portion.” Ge fortified "True PAJARES fe Personnel Specialist Commission Secretariat & Lixison OfficeA Grep Miranda, 8. Page 9 of 13 On this premise, a scrutiny of the Decision dated April 29, 2014 is but proper to determine whether the essential parts of a Decision were indeed present. ‘An evaluation of the Decision reveals that it had exhaustively and categorically discussed the nature of the case as well as the facts and circumstances attendant to it. The Decision likewise cited the pieces of evidence used and their relevance thereto, as well as the findings with respect to the investigation made by the Anti-Fraud Department and the audit conducted by the Operations and Financial Audit Department of the SSS, which investigation and audit reports were made integral parts of the Formal Charge against Grey-Miranda, The Decision has likewise cited the policies, rules and regulations violated with discussions on how Grey-Miranda’s actions constitute the administrative offenses of Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Finally, it provided the Investigating Committee’s recommendation for the finding of Grey-Miranda’s guilt and for her dismissal from the service, which disposes of the case, which recommendation was duly signedi/approved on May 12, 2014 by President and CEO Emilio D. De Quiros, Jr. Thus, this Commission finds that the Decision had also substantially conformed to the requirements of law. Clearly, there was no denial of due process in the case. As discussed above, both the Formal Charge and the Decision had substantially complied with the rules and were formally and substantially sufficient to apprise Grey-Miranda of the charges against her. ‘The facts and laws upon which the Decision was based were present. More so, Grey-Miranda had all the opportunity to succinctly raise her defense and to adduce all evidence in her favor as she had in fact filed several pleadings, like her Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits dated August 6, 2013 and her Memorandum dated December 20, 2013. On this note, her contentions of lack of due process must fail. Finally, it should be emphasized that the instant case is administrative in nature. That being said, it is especially peculiar as it is not bound by the strict technical rules obtaining to cases in ordinary court of law. In the case of Augusto Samalio vs. Court of Appeals, ef al (GR No. 140079, March 31, 2005), it was held that: xxx “Further, administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are unfettered by the rigidity of Certain procedural requirements, subject [0 the observance of fndamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before them. In_administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure ‘and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.” (Underlining supplied) Cb Tins Osby) Aisbartrcames ef Personnel Specialist ‘Commission Secretariat & Ligison OfficeA Greyldicanda, 8 Page 10 of 13 Anent the issue raised by Grey-Miranda that there is no evidence to show that she committed the acts for which she was found guilty of, the Commission cites the case of Office of the Ombudsman vs. Rodolfo Zaldarriaga (GR No. 175349, June 22, 2010), viz; xxx “Basic is the rule that, in administrative cases, the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable is substantial evidence, Section 5, Risle 133 of the Rules of Court is explicit, to wit: ‘Sec. 5. Substantial evidence. - In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." “Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in-ordinary civil cases, but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.” Thus, what is necessary to support a finding of guilt in an administrative offense is substantial evidence, or that degree of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Here, there is substantial evidence to support Grey-Miranda’s conviction for the administrative offenses charged. {t should be recalled that the findings of irregularities as embodied in the Decision, are the outcome of two (2) different and independent reports of the Anti-Fraud Department and the Operations and Financial Audit Department of the SSS. The SSS had proferred various documentary evidence to prove Grey-Miranda’s culpability As aptly cited in the Decision, Grey-Miranda is liable for the offense of Gross Neglect of Duty. By definition, 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 in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men/women never fail to take on their own property. In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable Here, there was substantial evidence that Grey-Miranda committed Gross Neglect of Duty for having knowingly failed to faithfully comply with the established procedures and guidelines required by the SSS in espousing the proper conduct in handling employer's delinquent accounts. " De La Viera vs. Mongaye, A.M, No, P-00-1436, February 19, 2001; also Fonacier vs. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 655, ‘iting Alejandro vs. People, 170 SCRA 400 [1989]; Quibal vs. Sandiganbeyan, 244 SCRA 224 [1995] HAlthed Trae Cop: fi PAJARE: ief Personnel Specialist Commission Secretariat & Liaison OfficeA Grey-Miranda, S. of!3 Page! The offense of Grave Misconduct, on the other hand, is defined as “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.” As differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.’ The same was also attendant in this case for, as cited in the Decision and the Investigation and Audit Reports, Grey-Miranda dispensed with the SSS procedures and requirements in handling the delinquent accounts of some employers, which resulted in giving unwarranted benefits and accommodations to them, It can also be said from Grey-Miranda’s actuations in violating various established SSS rules and regulations that she likewise committed the offense of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. Finally, since her actions brought prejudice and detriment not Just to the SSS but to the government service as a whole, and for tamishing the image and integrity of her government office, Grey-Miranda was also correctly found to have committed the offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Sections 46 A (2) (3), B (8) F (3) and 50 of the Revised Rules on the Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), provides that: sox “PENALTIES “Rule 10 “SCHEDULE OF PENALTIES “Section 46, Classification of Offenses. ~ Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service “A. — The following grave offenses shall be punishable by dismissal from the service wx "2. Gross Neglect of Duty "3, Grave Misconduct * BIR vs. Organo, G.R. No, 149549, February 26, 2004, citing the case of Arcenio v. Pagorogon (224 SCRA 246,254, July 5, 1993) OC eithed "Powe SEYMOUR R. PAJARES chief Personnel Specialist © Secretariat & Lisigon OfficeB® Grey-Miranda, , Page 12 of 13 The following grave offenses shall be punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense sox “8. Conduct Prejudicial to the best interest of the service; “F. The following light offenses are punishable by reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense; and dismissal from the service for the third offense: oer “3, Violation of reasonable office rules and regulations; vox “Section 50. Penalty for the Most Serious Offense. — If the respondent is found guilty of two (2) or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.” (Underscoring supplied) The above-quoted sections of RRACCS provides that the offenses of Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct are punishable by dismissal, the offense of Conduct Prejudici to the Best Interest of the Service is punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dist sal from the service for ine second offense, and the offense of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations Service is punishable by reprimand for the first offense, suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense and dismissal from the service for the third offense. If the respondent is found guilty of two or more offenses, the penalty for the most serious offense should be applied and the other/s will be considered aggravating circumstance/s. Considering that Grey-Miranda was found guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, Conduet Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, the penalty for the most serious offense, which is dismissal, should be applied. C ified True Copy: -ATARES ff Personnel Special ‘Commission Secretariat & Linison OfficeGrey-Mivanda, 8 Page 13 of 13 WHEREFORE, the appea! of Severina O. Grey-Miranda (a.k.a. Angelita Ojastro Grey), former Section Head, Coverage and Collection Section, Social Security System (SSS), Makati City, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated April 29, 2014 and Order dated July 18, 2014, finding her guilty of the offenses of Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and meting upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service including forfeiture of all benefits, perpetual disquelification from employment in the government service, cancellation of Civil Service eligibilities, and bar from taking Civil Service examinations and denying her Motion for Reconsideration, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to the extent that her personal contributions to the GSIS? and her terminal leave benefits are not forfeited. Quezon City. VACANT Chairman MIAN NIEVES L. OSORIO ‘Commissioner Attested by: ~ i DOLORES 8. BONTFACIO Director IV Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office OLAVOLAGLEAA/KSS(ol 120-ems0 SHesl/brdl Gre Miranda (Appeo 2014411006 > Carmelita Ledo vs. Atty. Cesar Lledo / AM No, P-95-1167/ February 9, 2010, nth se Gilt ‘Seow Fata s ef Persone Specialist, Commission Secretarist & Liaison OMFICE