ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES

DISHONESTY
SERIOUS LESS SIMPLE
SERIOUS
PENALTY Dismissal 1st offense 1st offense
from the -6 months and 1 - 1 month & 1 day
service day to 1 year to 6 months

2nd offense 2nd offense

- Dismissal from - 6 months and 1
the service day to 1 year

3rd offense
- dismissal
 NEGLECT OF DUTY
SERIOUS SIMPLE

PENALTY Dismissal from 1st offense

the service - 1 month & 1 day to 6
months

2nd offense
- 6 months and 1 day to 1
year
 DISHONESTY
SERIOUS LESS SIMPLE
SERIOUS
DEGREE Serious and Damage and Act did not cause
OF grave prejudice to the damage and
DAMAGE prejudice to government is prejudice to the
government not so serious government
 DISHONESTY
SERIOUS LESS SIMPLE
SERIOUS
RELATIONS Directly No direct No direct relation
TO related with relation to or to or does not
FUNCTIONS duties/ does not involve involve the duties
functions the duties and and
responsibilities responsibilities of
of the the respondent
respondent
 SERIOUS DISHONESTY
1.The dishonest act caused serious damage and
grave prejudice to the government
2.The respondent gravely abused his authority
in order to commit the dishonest act.
3.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
4.The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on
the part of the respondent
5.The respondent employed fraud and/or
falsification of official documents in the
commission of the dishonest act related to
his/her employment.
6.The dishonest act was committed several
times or in various occasions.
7.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
8.Other analogous circumstances
PROBLEM:
Pimentel submitted her DTR to make it appear
that she was religiously reporting to work during
said period. Is she liable for Serious Dishonesty?
Yes, Pimentels act is gross and blatant
act of Dishonesty. Not only does it reveal
her deplorable lack of candor, it
disturbingly shows her disregard of
office rules. Moreover, she unjustly
enriched herself by receiving her salaries
during said period without rendering the
required service.
(Pimentel vs. De Leoz, A.M. No. P-02-1620, April 1, 2003)
FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS
Misrepresentation of a thing, fact or
condition, certifying that a thing is true
when it is not, whether or not one has the
right to make the representation or
certificate.

It is immaterial whether it has caused

damage to a third person or not.
PROBLEM:
Can you be dismissed from the service by making
untruthful statements or erroneous entries in your
Personal Data Sheet (PDS)?

Yes. The accomplishment of the PDS is

required under Civil Service Rules and
Regulations for employment in the government.
The making of an untruthful statement therein
amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an
official document that warrant dismissal from
the service even on the first offense.
(Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official
Document against Noel V. Luna, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer,
A.M. No. 2003-7-SC, December 15, 2003)
PROBLEM:
To avail of PhilHealth benefits, respondent
accomplished PhilHealth forms wherein he
made it appear that the woman who was
confined in a hospital due to missed abortion
and complete curettage is his wife. When
respondents real wife discovered that he used
her name to claim PhilHealth benefits, she filed
a complaint against him. Respondent was found
guilty of Serious Dishonesty. He argued that he
cannot be guilty of Serious Dishonesty because
what he committed has nothing to do with the
performance of his functions. Is he correct?
 NO. Dishonesty, in order to
warrant dismissal, need not be
committed in the course of
performance of duty. Respondent is
even guilty of Falsification of
Official Documents.
(Bardon, Eddie B., CSC Decision No.
131109, November 26, 2013)
 GRAVE MISCONDUCT
A deviation from the established norms of
conduct required of a public servant
An intentional wrongdoing or deliberate
violation of a rule of law or standard of
behavior
the act must have a direct relation to and be
connected with the performance of his official
duties (Hernando v. Bengson, A.M. No. P-09-2686, March 28,
2011; GSIS v. Mayordomo, G.R. No. 191218, May 31, 2011)
PROBLEM:
Mario is a process server of a Municipal Trial
Court. He was found to be in possession of
790 grams of Marijuana without the
necessary permit. Is he guilty of Grave
Misconduct?
Yes. Flagrant violation of the law is
considered Grave Misconduct. (OCA v. Lopez,
A.M. No. P-10-2788)
PROBLEM:
During DILG Christmas party, Ganzon
armed with firearm acted menacingly
towards OIC Provincial Director Arlos.
He pointed his firearm at Arlos chest
causing the latter to run due to
extreme fear of his life. Ganzons act
was due to the poor performance
rating given by Arlos.Is Ganzon
guilty of Grave Misconduct?
Yes, Ganzon is liable for Grave
Misconduct. To begin with, he was
not acting in his private capacity
when he acted menacingly towards
Arlos, it being clear that his
resentment of his poor performance
rating, surely a matter that
concerned his performance of duty,
motivated his confronting the latter.
(Ganzon vs. Arlos, October 22, 2013. GR No. 174321)
 PROBLEM:
Respondent Provincial Treasurer failed to
liquidate her cash advances in full within the
prescribed period despite her receipt of the
demand letters. Is respondent guilty of Gross
Neglect?

Yes she is liable for Gross Neglect of

Duty which is punishable by dismissal
(Salvador, Victoria Q., CSC Decision No. 140435, June
10, 2014)
PROBLEM:
Estampa is the Medical Officer VI of
Davao City Health Office. On March 4,
2003, at around 6 p.m., a powerful bomb
exploded at the passengers terminal of
the Davao InternationalAirport, killing 22
persons and injuring 113 others. Dr.
Estampa had just arrived home at that time
and was taking care of his one-year-old
daughter. He learned of the bombing
incident between 7 to 8 p.m. His wife
arrived at 9 p.m. from her work at
the Davao Medical Center where most of the
bombing victims were brought for
treatment. She prevailed on Dr. Estampa to
stay home and he did. Is there any liability?
Yes, he is liable for Gross Neglect of
Duty. A persons duty to his family is not
incompatible with his job-related
commitment to come to the rescue of
victims of disasters. Besides, knowing
that his job as Senior Medical Health
Officer entailed the commitment to make
a measure of personal sacrifice, he had
the choice to resign from it when he
realized that he did not have the will and
the heart to respond. (Estampa vs. City Government
of Davao, G.R No. 190681, June 21, 2010)
LESS SERIOUS DISHONESTY
1.The dishonest act caused damage
and prejudice to the government
which is not so serious as to qualify
under the immediately preceding
classification
2.The respondent did not take
advantage of his/her position in
committing the dishonest act.
3.Other analogous cases
PROBLEM:
Atty. Aurora A. Salvaa was directed to handle special
projects and perform such other duties and functions as may be
assigned to her by the Light Rail Transit Authority Administrator.
Atty. Salvaa was directed to comply with this office order but
instead of complying, Salvaa questioned the order with the
Office of the President. During the interim, Salvaa applied for
sick leave of absence on May 12, 2006 and from May 15 to May
31, 2006. In support of her application, she submitted a medical
certificate issued by Dr. Grace Marie Blanco of the Veterans
Memorial Medical Center (VMMC). LRTA discovered that Dr.
Blanco did not issue this medical certificate. Dr. Blanco also
denied having seen or treated Salvaa on May 15, 2006, the
date stated on her medical certificate. What is the administrative
liability of Atty. Salvana?
 Less Serious Dishonesty. Atty. Salvaas
application for sick leave, was supported by a
false medical certificate which allowed her to
be absent from work without any deductions
from her salary. The receipt of her salaries
during this period is tantamount to causing
damage or prejudice to the government since
had 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.
Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service
The misconduct is not related to official
functions or duties
Such unwarranted act of the respondent,
which resulted in an undue prejudice to the
best interest of the service where the
government was denied of a committed
service. (Castil, Saturnino A., CSC
Decision No. 140181, March 4, 2014)
PROBLEM:
Peaflorida is the Budget and
Management Specialist in charge of
processing the accounts payable of
DAR. She asked personal favor to
Auayang, the Acting Budget Officer of
DAR to purchase narra door panels
for personal use. Is she liable?
Yes. Being DBM employee who is in
charge of accounts payable of DAR,
she should not ask personal favors
from his client-agency who follow-
up requests for release of their
budget. Otherwise, asking of
personal favors on the part of the
DBM employee would be perceived
as condition for the release of the
agencys budget. (Peaflorida, Juancho L. CSC
Resolution No . 06-2122 dated November 28, 2006)
SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY

> Mere delay in the performance of one's

function has been consistently considered
simple neglect of duty
PROBLEM:
Mayor Vicente Salumbides III saw the urgent
need to construct a two-classroom building with fence
(the projects) for the Tagkawayan Municipal High
School. Mayor consulted Salumbides, Legal Officer,
who suggested that the construction of the two-
classroom building be charged to the account of the
(MOOE/RMF), as the same had been done in a previous
classroom building project of the former mayor.
Salumbides, without asking approval from the
Sangguniang Bayan advised the mayor to source the
funds from theP1,000,000 MOOE/RMF allocation in the
approved Municipal Annual Budget for 2002. This
caused a case before the Ombudsman. Is there
liability?
 Salumbides is liable for Simple
neglect of duty. In the present case, she
fell short of the reasonable diligence
required of her, for failing to exercise due
care and prudence in ascertaining the
legal requirements and fiscal soundness
of the projects before stamping her
imprimatur and giving her advice to her
superior.
 SIMPLE DISHONESTY
1.Did not cause damage or prejudice to
the government
2.No direct relation to or does not
involve the duties and responsibilities
of the respondent
3.In falsification of official document,
where the information falsified is not
related to his/her employment
4.The dishonest act did not result in any
gain or benefit to the offender.
PROBLEM:
Andaya, Utility Worker A, misrepresented in
his PDS that he passed the Career Service
Professional Examination. Is respondent guilty
of serious dishonesty?

No. Even if Andaya misrepresented her

alleged career service professional eligibility
in her PDS, it will not redound to her benefit
considering that such eligibility is irrelevant
to her present appointment. With or without
the false declaration, the fact of her being
appointed as Utility Worker A under
permanent status remains. She can only be
held liable for Simple Dishonesty
 Self-disciplined begins with
the mastery of your thoughts. If you
don't control what you think, you
can't control what you do. Simply,
self-discipline enables you to think
first and act afterward.

Napoleon Hill American author, 1883-1970