Disciplinary Actions on Public Officers

Heirs of Celestino Teves vs. Augusto J. Felicidario

A.M. No. P-12-3-89 (November 13, 2013)
Ponente: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. Digest Author: MERCADO

DOCTRINE: Supreme Court defined dishonesty as “intentionally making a false statement on any material fact;” and “a
disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle;
lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.”

Specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as defined by the court as those acts or omissions
that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary, thereby
prejudicing the best interest of the administration of justice.

FACTS:
 Petitioners owned lot no. 190 while respondent owned lot 189 which is adjacent and contiguous with the former’s
land.
 Upon the approval of a new subdivision plan, respondent’s lot erroneously increased from 838 sq meters to 941.
Respondent concealed the same knowing the error until he was issued Original Cert of Title pursuant to CLOA for Lot
189 with a total area of 941 sq meters.
 Respondent then started to unlawfully and forcibly acquire 117 sq meters of petitioners’ land by altering and
installing concrete boundaries destroying the comfort room, dirty kitchen, warehouse, and trees in the disputed area.
 Complainants filed a complaint against petitioner for Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty and Conduct Unbecoming an
Officer of the Court.
 Office of the Court Administrator ordered the complaint to be re-docketed as a regular admin. matter and found
respondent guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and suspended respondent for 3 months
w/o pay.
 The case was then submitted for decision.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: The acts imputed by complainants against him were not related to the performance of his official
duties. There is an absence of the requisites of corruption or a clear intent to violate the law or a flagrant disregard of
established rule; as well as the lack of evidence that respondent’s conduct in the exercise of his rights as a private individual
debased the public’s confidence in the courts. Respondent reiterated that he had no hand in the increase of his total lot area
after the new survey.

ISSUE: W/N respondent is guilty of simple dishonesty and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING+RATIO: YES.

In Villordon v. Avila, the Court defined dishonesty as “intentionally making a false statement on any material fact;” and “a
disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in
principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.”

It is true that respondent did not have a hand in the resurvey conducted by the DAR in 2003 which resulted in the increased
land area of his Lot 189. Nonetheless,
respondent’s actuations thereafter displayed his lack of honesty, fairness, and straightforwardness, not only with his neighbors,
but also with the concerned government agencies/officials. Complainants and respondent had been awarded and occupying
their respective properties under the DAR Resettlement Program since 1966, yet, respondent did not express surprise and/or
bafflement upon the increase of his lot. Honesty, fairness, and straightforwardness, as well as good faith and prudence, would
have impelled respondent to bring the matter to the attention of complainants and the DAR, and inquire and verify with the
DAR his entitlement to the increased land area, especially when he was well-aware that complainants had been in possession of
the disputed area. Instead, respondent, undeniably benefitting from the increased land area of Lot 189, held his peace and
already proceeded to secure a certificate of title in his name for Lot 189, with a land area of 941 square meters.

Respondent’s dishonesty was committed through his silence and/or

inaction, when the circumstances demanded otherwise, rather than his active and/or express misrepresentation to the
complainants and concerned public officials; and that respondent committed the dishonesty in his private life and not in the
course of performance of his official functions, the Court holds him guilty of only simple dishonesty.
Respondent’s deportment under the circumstances likewise constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. In
addition to being dishonest, respondent appears to have illegally forced his way into the disputed area. As a Sheriff, he is
expected to be familiar with court procedure and processes, especially those concerning the execution of orders and decisions
of the courts. It is difficult for the Court to believe that respondent is completely unaware that even as the registered owner of
the real property and with the barangay officials’ assistance, he cannot simply enter and take possession of the disputed area
and destroy complainants’ improvements thereon. He must first initiate an ejectment case against complainants before the
appropriate court and secure a court order and writ of possession.

The Court further declared that the administrative offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service need not be
related to or connected with the public officer’s official functions. As long as the questioned conduct tarnishes the image and
integrity of his public office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public officer or employee. Respondent’s
transgressions may not be related to his
official duties and functions, but certainly reflect badly
upon the entire Judiciary. Respondent failed to live up to the high ethical standards demanded by the office he occupies.

Court also ruled that there was no misconduct in this case as the same was not connected with the performance of his official
duties.

Rule 10, Section 50 additionally provides that if the civil servant is found guilty of two 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 best interest of the
service, it being the more serious offense. The Court then considers for purposes of determining the proper penalty,
respondent’s simple dishonesty as an aggravating circumstance; while respondent’s 43 years in government service, 32 of
which had been in the judiciary, as mitigating circumstance. The Court likewise takes into account, for humanitarian reasons,
that respondent is almost of retirement age at 64 years. Consequently, the penalty of suspension without pay for six (6) months
and one (1) day is appropriate under the circumstances.

DISPOSITION: Felicidario, Sheriff IV is GUILTY of simple dishonesty and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the
service and is suspended for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of
the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

CSC vs. Aurora M. Clave

G.R. No. 1945645 (March 6, 2012)
Ponente: Digest Author: MERCADO
DOCTRINE: Simple neglect of duty is the failure to give attention to a
task, or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference.

Length of service in the government could not mitigate liability for third offense

FACTS:
 Diosdado Estoque, through the Mainframe Salary Loan System (MSLS), granted Marie Ann F. Tornea (Tornea) an
enhanced salary loan with net proceeds of P73,123.87 for which GSIS Check was issued. The check was later released
and negotiated.
 Clave, a Senior Computer Operator I of the Social Insurance Group (SIG) at the Manila District Office of the GSIS,
without proper authority or valid reason and in gross violation of pertinent rules and procedure, cancelled the header
of Tornea’s loan as appearing in the MSLS. Clave used her operator ID (known only to one user) and the computer
terminal assigned to her (SI42). By cancelling the loan, Clave made it appear that the loan had not been granted to
Tornea.
 GSIS found her guilty of simple neglect of duty and having committed the same twice, she was dismissed. Upon
appeal, it was affirmed by the CSC and CA but CA modified the penalty to suspension without pay for 1 yr and a
warning ruling that there was nothing in the records that showed Clave’s bad faith when she gave her operator ID and
password to other persons. Hence, this petition.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: She was not aware of Tornea’s loan as she was absent on that day. Clave further alleged that the
authority given to her on loan applications was limited only to granting salary loan applications and cancelling voided checks or
checks that were physically defective due to computer malfunction. Clave alleged that she was not authorized to use Function
“D” which was the deletion function used in cancelling the header of Tornea’s loan. According to Clave, only the section and
division chiefs of the loans administrative division and the Information Technology Services Group (ITSG) can access Function
“D.” Finally, Clave alleged that, at that time, she had been with the GSIS for 28 years with unblemished service and dedicated
loyalty.

ISSUE: W/N CA committed an error in reducing the penalty imposed on Clave.

RULING+RATIO: YES.

Simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first
offense and dismissal for the second offense.

In reducing the penalty imposed on Clave, the Court of Appeals considered Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service, which states:
“Sec. 53. Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating, or Alternative Circumstances.—In the determination of the penalties to be
imposed, mitigating, aggravating and alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered:
The following circumstances shall be appreciated:
xxx
j. Length of service in the government.
x x x”
The Court of Appeals ruled that length of service in the government can mitigate or aggravate the penalty, depending on the
circumstances of the case. The Court of
Appeals considered Clave’s 30 years of service in the government, as well as her lack of bad faith, in reducing the penalty
imposed by the GSIS and the CSC. While
acknowledging that this was not Clave’s first offense for simple neglect of duty, the Court of Appeals invoked the court’s
discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy and cited humanitarian reasons for the modification of the
decisions of the GSIS and the CSC.

The Court does not agree with the CA. Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service is clear that
length of service
may be considered either as mitigating or aggravating depending on the circumstances of the case. Here, it was shown that
Clave was previously found guilty by the GSIS of simple neglect of duty for unauthorized
cancellation of the loan and header of one Basilio C. Benitez. In that case, the GSIS suspended Clave for three months. Earlier,
2005, the GSIS found Clave guilty of conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service for her participation in a mass action that
resulted in the disruption of GSIS operations, for which she was meted the penalty of suspension for six months and one day.
Hence, Clave’s length of service in the government could not mitigate her liability considering that the present offense is not
her first offense but her third offense. Applying Section 52(B) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
the penalty of dismissal imposed by the GSIS and affirmed by the CSC should instead be imposed on Clave.

DISPOSITION: SET ASIDE CA’s Resolution. RESINSTATE CSC’s Resolution dismissiong Clave from service with perpetual
disqualification to hold public office, forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, cancellation of Civil Service
eligibility, and prohibition from taking Civil Service examinations.