DEPARTM

ENT
order No.
49
Series 2006
VIOLATIONS and
PENALTIES
Disciplining Authority
Teaching – Regional Director

Non-Teaching – Schools Division

Superintendent
HOW
COMMENCED?
Complaint or Motu-Proprio

Prima Facie Case - enough

evidence to prove something by
pointing to some basic facts, but
said proof can be refuted.
CLASSIFICATION
OF OFFENSES
• Grave

• Less Grave

• Light

 depends on the (1) gravity, (2)

depravity and (3) effects on the
government service

 varies in the imposable penalty

 GRAVE OFFENSES
● Dishonesty

● Gross Neglect of Duty

● Grave Misconduct

● Notoriously Undesirable

● Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turptitude

● Falsification of Official Document

● Physical or Mental Incapacity

• Engaging Directly or Indirectly in
Partisan Political Activities by a non-
political public employee

• Receiving for Personal Use of a fee, gift

or other Valuable Thing in the Course
of or Connected to Official Duties in
expectancy of a better or favorable
treatment

• Contracting Loans (Money) or other

Property from persons with whom the
office of the employee has business
relations

• Disloyalty to the Republic of the

Philippines
• Solicit or Accept

• Directly or Indirectly

• Gift, favor, entertainment, loan, anything of

monetary consideration

• From anyone in the course of official duties

• OR in connection with any operations and

transactions of his/her office
GRAVE- SUSPENSION
● Refusal to Perform Official Duty

● Gross Insubordination

● Directly or Indirectly have Financial and

Material Interest in any transaction of the
office

● Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of

the Service
Less grave
• Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties

• Habitual Drunkness

• Discrimination on Rendering Public Service

Due to Preference

• Failure to file SALN

• Borrowing money by superior officers from

subordinates

• Lending money at usurious interest rates

• Failure to file SALN

• Willful failure to pay just debts

• Failure to attend to (delay) anyone who wants
to avail of the services of the office
● Violation of CSC Rules

● Administrative Disabilities/Accessories to
Administrative Penalties

 Cancellation of eligibility

 Forfeiture of retirement benefits

 Disqualification for reinstatement or

reemployment

 Disqualification for promotion

● Violation of reasonable office rules and

regulations (i.e. Uniform & ID)

● Gambling

● Refusal to render overtime service

• Disgraceful, immoral or dishonest
conduct prior to entering the service

• Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

• Malversation and Technical

Malversation

• Falsification of Public Documents

(Fabrication in the PDS or in any
Government/Public Document)
grounds
 GRAVE MISCONDUCT
The penalty for Grave Misconduct for the first offense is Dismissal from the Service.

Sexually abusing a student.

In CSC Resolution No. 98-1432 dated July 10, 1998 (ARTECHE, Jesusita), the Commission stated,
thus:

“Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence of the public officer. Also, the word misconduct
implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgement. If the transgression is done with
deliberate intent or in complete disregard of established rules, it becomes Grave Misconduct.
Otherwise, it is only Simple Misconduct.’’

As a teacher, he is charged with the supervision and care of his students. His wrongful acts are
deliberate and in complete disregard of established rules. His profession carries with it the utmost
responsibility of setting good example.
 DISHONESTY

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. This
column should not be taken as a legal advice applicable to any case as each
case is unique and should be construed in light of the attending
circumstances surrounding such particular case.
 NEGLECT OF DUTY

Unauthorized use of government vehicle resulted to damage of

equipment/unauthorized driver.

It may constitute either Gross Neglect of Duty or Simple Neglect of Duty.

Gross Negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight

care, acting, or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to
consequences in so far as other persons may be affected.

On the other hand, Simple Neglect of Duty is defined as the failure to give
proper attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either
carelessness or indifference.
 G.R. No. 197745
Atty. MELITA S. RECTO-SAMBAJON vs. PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Atty. Recto-Sambajon 's repeated threats made her Notoriously undesirable.

AAA threatened "[w]hoever will feed any wrong information to the Chief, I will shoot them
conjoined through the eyes."

"Yung mga naghahatid [ng] maling impormasyon kay Chief ay paduduguin ko ang mata."

After the flag ceremony, AAA said "[s]abihin mo sa kanya, pag may nangyari sa anak ko
babarilin ko siya."

Reiterated her threats that she would shoot her should anything happen to her child as she
was pregnant at the time.

In the administrative offense of Being Notoriously Undesirable, a two-fold test is employed, to

wit: (1) whether it is common knowledge or generally known as universally believed to be true
or manifest to the world that the employee committed the acts imputed against him; and (2)
whether he had contracted the habit for any of the enumerated misdemeanors. Applying
these, the Court finds AAA guilty of Being Notoriously Undesirable.
 G.R. No. 197745
Atty. MELITA S. RECTO-SAMBAJON vs. PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

In this case, the threatening remarks made by Atty. AAA were generally known considering
that she made those remarks in the presence of several colleagues. In fact, she admitted to
have uttered such but justified it as an emotional outburst. Further, AAA manifested a
predilection to be violent with her colleagues.

We note that AAA had threatened her colleagues on several consecutive days and even had
the audacity to utter menacing remarks in the presence of Chief Acosta. Her threats cannot
simply be treated as an emotional outburst considering that she made them on several
occasions. More importantly, the hostile remarks were of a grave nature considering that she
had threatened, not merely to inflict physical pain, but to cause death. Thus, there is
substantial evidence to hold her Notoriously Undesirable. AAA's hostile and menacing
attitude towards her colleagues has no place in public service.
 ESCAÑO v. MANAOISA.M. No. 16-02-01-CTA, November 15, 2016

SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY

Manaois failed to timely process the service records of Atty. Agnes D. Arao (Court Attorney
IV), and Ms. Tanya B. Galapon (Executive Assistant V), both employees under the Office of
Associate Justice Caesar A. Cassanova. In finding Manaois guilty, the hearing committee
relied on the testimony of Escaño. She testified that the CSC had been following up the
service records with her, prompting her to issue a Memorandum addressed to Manaois
instructing him to submit the documents to the CSC Field Office the next day. The
submission of the service records may be considered as a clerical job, thus any delay in its
performance is considered unreasonable. Manaois' inaction in processing the service
records shows that he was remiss in his duty, and therefore guilty of simple neglect of duty.
 ESCAÑO v. MANAOISA.M. No. 16-02-01-CTA, November 15, 2016

DISCOURTESY IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES

The hearing committee also recommended that Manaois be adjudged guilty of discourtesy in the course of
official duties based on the following instances:

First, Escaño alleged that she has been receiving complaints from CTA employees assigned to Manaois
regarding his rudeness, callousness, and notorious undesirability, which caused her to frequently change
the employees assigned to him, as evidenced by a Memorandum dated May 10, 2013.

Second, Manaois disregarded the hierarchy of positions and acted in excess of his authority when he
bypassed the authority of Escaño (as the Division Chief) by directly issuing a memorandum against Miralles,
who was then Acting HRD Section Chief. In a Memorandum dated March 28, 2012, Esca ño reminded her staff
of the proper protocol in case of intra­division disputes, and expressed that Manaois' act was "prejudicial to
[her] capacity as the Chief of the Division and to Ms. Miralles who [was] acting as Section Chief x x x."

Third, Manaois accused Mayor (HRMO III) of giving false instructions to Karla D. Aspa (HRMO I). In a letter
addressed to Escaño, he stated that in his view, Mayor should "refrain from verbally instructing her
subordinates especially in the performance of [their] duties and responsibilities, if she is not familiar to [sic]
the same x x x." In response, Mayor expressed that she was indignant with Manaois' statement because it
intended to malign her work value.
 ESCAÑO v. MANAOISA.M. No. 16-02-01-CTA, November 15, 2016

Fourth, Manaois was rude and discourteous in his dealings with Escaño.
In one instance, Manaois stormed out of the room while Escaño was
clarifying another incident involving Manaois and a fellow HRMO, Anna
Ria Sundiam. Mayor also testified that Manaois had a tendency to talk
back to Escaño in an arrogant manner. Another employee, Rowena
Lising (Lising), also attested to Manaois' impolite behavior towards
Escaño.
 ESCAÑO v. MANAOISA.M. No. 16-02-01-CTA, November 15, 2016

FREQUENT UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES

The hearing committee found that Manaois incurred absences without

official leave (AWOL) on September 9, 10, 11, and 15, 2014, and was "no­
call, no-show" during those days. These acts constitute violations of the
Human Resource Department's Internal Policy on Office Protocol which
requires all Human Resource Department employees to inform their
Chief of their absences. Manaois' fellow HRMOs - namely, Miralles,
Lising, and Adayo - also testified that he often left the office during
working hours without informing Escaño of his whereabouts.
 ESCAÑO v. MANAOISA.M. No. 16-02-01-CTA, November 15, 2016

NOTORIOUS UNDESIRABILITY

Finally, we agree with the hearing committee's finding that Manaois' notorious undesirability is manifest from his
general reputation among his co-workers in the HRD, as well as his previous transfers from different divisions of the
CTA due to his inability to work well with others and his disrespect for his immediate supervisors. Esca ño, Mayor,
Lising, Miralles, and Adayo, testified that Manaois was difficult to work with and that he had negative interactions with
his co-employees. Manaois' former supervisor in the Budget Division, Isidro Barredo, Jr., also stated that Manaois
displayed unruly attitude towards him and had asked that he be transferred to another division.

In determining whether an employee is notoriously undesirable, the CSC prescribes a two-fold test: (1) whether it is
common knowledge or generally known as universally believed to be true or manifest to the world that the employee
committed the acts imputed against him; and (2) whether he had contracted the habit for any of the enumerated
misdemeanors.

We are satisfied that Manaois' general reputation within the HRD as someone who is quarrelsome and difficult to work
with, in addition to his history of rude and discourteous conduct towards his supervisors, adequately show that he is
notoriously undesirable. Manaois' actions have been substantiated and corroborated by the testimonies of the
witnesses presented during the investigation.
 ESCAÑO v. MANAOISA.M. No. 16-02-01-CTA, November 15, 2016

An employee who cannot get along with his co-employees and superiors can upset and strain the working
environment and is therefore detrimental to institution. Such instance calls for us to exercise our prerogative to take
the necessary action to correct the situation and protect the judiciary.

The Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service prescribes the following penalties for respondent's
violations:

Sec. 46. Classification of Offenses. - x x x

(A). The following grave offenses shall be punishable by dismissal from the service:
xxx

4. Being notoriously undesirable;

xxx

(B). 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:
xxx
 ESCAÑO v. MANAOISA.M. No. 16-02-01-CTA, November 15, 2016

5. Frequent unauthorized absences, or tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing from duty during regular office hours;

xxx
(D). The following less grave offenses are punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day suspension to six (6)
months for the first offense; and dismissal from the service for the second offense:

1. Simple neglect of duty;

xxx

3. Discourtesy in the course of official duties;

xxx

Section 50 of the same Rules provides that if the respondent 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
aggravating. In this case, the most serious charge for which we find Manaois guilty of is the grave offense of being
notoriously undesirable, which is punishable by dismissal from service.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Adrian P. Manaois GUILTY of simple neglect of duty, discourtesy in the
course of official duties, frequent unauthorized absences, and being notoriously undesirable. Accordingly, he is meted
with the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with the accessory penalties of cancellation of his eligibility, forfeiture
of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service
examinations.
 ESCAÑO v. MANAOISA.M. No. 16-02-01-CTA, November 15, 2016

CRIMES CATEGORIZED AS CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE

CONCURRING OPINION of Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRION in the case of TEVES v. COMELEC with G.R. No.
180363, April 28, 2009

Since the early 1920 case of In re Basa,36 the Court has maintained its case-by-case categorization of crimes on the basis of
moral turpitude and has labeled specific crimes as necessarily involving moral turpitude. The following is a list, not
necessarily complete, of the crimes adjudged to involve moral turpitude:

1. Abduction with consent

6. Estafa through falsification of a document
2. Bigamy
7. Attempted Bribery
3. Concubinage
8. Profiteering
4. Smuggling

5. Rape 9. Robbery

10. Murder, whether consummated or attempted

 ESCAÑO v. MANAOISA.M. No. 16-02-01-CTA, November 15, 2016

11. Estafa 18. Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-

pushing)
12. Theft
19. Perjury
13. Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker
20. Forgery
14. Violation of BP Bldg. 2250
21. Direct Bribery
15. Falsification of Document
22. Frustrated Homicide
16. Intriguing against Honor

17. Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law

Zari v. Flores is one case that has provided jurisprudence its own list of crimes involving moral turpitude,
namely:adultery, concubinage, rape, arson, evasion of income tax, barratry, bigamy, blackmail, bribery,
criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium, dueling, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making fraudulent
proof of loss on insurance contract, murder, mutilation of public records, fabrication of evidence, offenses
against pension laws, perjury, seduction under the promise of marriage, estafa, falsification of public
document, and estafa thru falsification of public document.
 ESCAÑO v. MANAOISA.M. No. 16-02-01-CTA, November 15, 2016

FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENT

RUBA, Lilibeth N., RESOLUTION NO. 020821

falsified and forged or caused to be falsified and forged the

signature/initial of Leonor M. Delos Santos, Branch Cashier.
Thank YOU!

CREDITS: This presentation template was

created by Slidesgo, including icons by Flaticon,
and infographics & images by Freepik.

Please keep this slide for attribution.