2017 RACCS

(2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service)

 What is administrative discipline?
Administrative Discipline is a
1. System of rules;
2. Policies and
3. Standards
intended to regulate the behavior of government employees according to
accepted norms of
a. efficiency
b. integrity and
c. morals.

Administrative Code of 1997 – Civil Service Commission [EO No. 292]

RA 6713 – General Principles on Public Officers/Public Office
 Legal Basis for Disciplinary Action

“Public Office is a Public Trust.”

Public officers and employees must at all times
be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and
lead modest lives.”
Section 1, Art. IX, 1987 Philippine Constitution
 Legal Basis for Disciplinary Action

- Executive Order 292 – Administrative Code of 1987

- RA 6713 – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees
- RA 3019 – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
- 2017 RACCS
- RA 7160 – Local Government Code of 1991
- RA 6770 – Ombudsman Act of 1989
 The term Employee:

1. First Level position – refers to positions involved in structured

work in support of office operations or those engaged in clerical,
trades, crafts, or custodial service which involve sub-professional
work in non-supervisory capacity.
2. Second Level position – includes professional, technical and
scientific positions which involve professional, technical and
scientific work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity up
to Division Chief level or its equivalent.
The term Public Officer/Official:
 What is the difference the new employee and the
old employee?

• The new employee knows the rules and

regulations of the office.

• The old employee knows all the exemptions

of the rules and regulations of the office.
What is the concept of Administrative Discipline?

A machinery designed to exact, maintain, and

assure public accountability.
The principle is that when an officer or employee is
disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of
such officer or employee but the improvement of the
public service and the preservation of the public’s
faith and confidence in the government.
 Security of Tenure

“No officer or employee in the Civil Service

shall be suspended or dismissed except for
cause as provided by law and after due
process.”
(Sec. 46, Title I-A, Bk V, EO 292)
 Why the need for Security of Tenure?

The efficiency and effectiveness of a Civil Service

System depends largely on the morale of the
officers and employees in the service.

Hence, basic in any civil service is the guarantee

against arbitrary impairment, whether total or
partial, of the right to continue in the position held.
 Administrative Discipline

1. Cause as provided by law

- EO 292
- 2017 RACCS
- RA 6713
 Administrative Discipline

2. After Due Process

a. Substantive - requires the intrinsic validity of the
law in interfering with the rights of the person to life,
liberty or property.
b. Procedural – one which hears before it
condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial
 Essence of Administrative Due Process
Gannapao vs CSC (GR No. 180141)
“Time and again, we have held that the essence of due process is
simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity
to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
In the application of the principle of due process, what is sought
to be safeguarded is not the lack of previous notice but the denial of
the opportunity to be heard. As long as a party was given the
opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied
due process”.
Quantum of proof needed in Administrative Proceedings

De Jesus vs Guerrero et. al. (GR No. 171491)

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a
finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e. that amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by
substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.
The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not
equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation
likewise cannot be given credence. Hence, when the complainant
relies on mere conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate
his allegations, the administrative complaint must be dismissed for
lack of merit.
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and the right to act in a case.

“Jurisdiction” is the basic foundation of judicial proceedings. The

word “jurisdiction” is derived from two Latin words “juris” and
“dico” – “I speak by the law” – which means fundamentally the
power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain,
hear, and determine certain controversies. (People vs Mariano, GR No. L-40527,
June 30, 1976)
 Disciplining Authority

- The person or body authorized by law to make appointments in the Philippine

Civil Service (Section 5 [2], EO 292)

- Note: The power to appoint carries the power to remove or to discipline.

(Atty. Aguirre Jr., vs de Castro, GR No. 127631, December 17, 1999)
- Principle: The power to remove or to discipline is lodged in the same
authority on which the power to appoint is rested.
Q: Is the cessation from office warrant the dismissal of the administrative
case filed against a public officer while he or she was still in the service, or
render the said case academic?
A: The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that cessation from office by reason of
resignation, death, or retirement does not warrant the dismissal of the
administrative case filed against a public officer while he or she was still in the
service, or render the said case academic.
The jurisdiction of the disciplining authority attaches at the time of the filing
of the administrative complaint and is not lost by the mere fact that the
respondent public official had ceased to be in office during the pendency of his
case. This rule applies to all employees in the civil service, mindful of the
constitutional precept that public office is a public trust for which all
government employees and officials are accountable to the people.
(Teodulo vs Largovs, GR No. 177244, November 20, 2007)
Q: May a government employee be still held liable for conduct committed while he
or she was still in the service even if he has already resigned from the service?
A: In the recent case of OMBUDSMAN vs ANDUTAN (GR No. 164679, July 27,
2011), the Supreme Court has held that administrative jurisdiction over a government
official or employee is lost once he leaves the office without the administrative case
being instituted against him.
SC disagree with the Ombudsman’s interpretation that as long as the breach of
conduct was committed while the public official or employee was still in the service
xxx a public servant’s resignation is not a bar to his administrative investigation,
prosecution, and adjudication. If we agree with this interpretation, any official even if
he has been separated from the service for a long time may still be subject to the
disciplinary authority of his superiors, ad infinitum.
SC believes that this interpretation is inconsistent with the principal motivation of
the law which is to improve public service and to preserve the public’s faith and
confidence in the government, and not the punishment of the public official concerned.
Likewise, if the act committed by the public official is indeed inimical to the interest of
the State, other mechanism are available to redress the same.
(Teodulo vs Largovs, GR No. 177244, November 20, 2007)
Loyao vs Cube
AM No. P-02-1599, April 20, 2003

“The death or retirement of any judicial officer from the service

does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which
he shall still be answerable.”

Limliman vs Marrero
AM No. RTJ-02-1739, January 22, 2003

“However, if the respondent could no longer be in a position to

defend himself as in case of death, the administrative case should be
dismissed.”
 Does administrative offense prescribe?

- On the matter of prescription, we have in earlier cases ruled that

administrative offenses do not prescribe.
- Administrative offenses by their very nature pertain to the character
of public officers and employees. In disciplining public officers and
employees, the object sought is not the punishment of the officer or
employee but the improvement of the public service and the
preservation of the public’s health and confidence in our
government.

(Melchor vs Gironella, GR No. 151138, February 16, 2005)

 Administrative Proceedings (Stage 1) N
O
Appearance of Counsel
T
F I
Counter
O C
Affidavit / R E
C Comment
M
O Preliminary
Ex-parte Prima Yes A O
M Investigation IR Facie
Evaluation L F
Yes Case
P
Valid
L Compliant
Clarification
C C
Meeting
A No H H
I No Settlement A A
Decision
N R R
Decision Sec 72
T Yes
G G
Dismiss E E
Motion for Reconsideration
 Administrative Proceedings (Stage 2)
N
O
T Preventive
F I Suspension D
O C E
R E C
Sec 26
M I
A O Answer
Formal Pre-Hearing Hearing S
Investigation Conference FIR
L F I
O
C C Sec 26 (2) N
H H Position Paper
A A
R R
G G Dismiss
E E
- Misfeasance means improper performance of an act which might be properly
performed. An act that is not illegal but is improperly performed.
- Malfeasance means performance of an act which ought not to be done. An
affirmative act that is illegal or wrongful.
- Nonfeasance means omission of an act which ought to be done or which is a
failure to act that results in injury.
 Sec. 46, 2017 RACCS vis-à-vis Sec. 3 RA 10154

- Sec. 3. Retiring Employees with Pending Cases – In the case of

retiring government employees with pending cases and whose
retirement benefits are being lawfully withheld due to possible
pecuniary liability, the head of agency where such case is pending
shall ensure that the said case shall be terminated and/or resolved
within a period of three (3) months from the date of the retirement
of the concerned employee: Provided, That in case the concerned
agency fails to terminate and/or resolve the case within the said
period without any justifiable reason(s), the retirement benefits due
to the employee shall be immediately released to him/her without
prejudice to the ultimate resolution of the case; except, when the
delay is deliberately caused by the retiring employee.
 Is trial-type hearing indispensable in an administrative
proceeding?

- It must be stressed that a trial-type hearing is not indispensable in an

administrative proceeding since a party thereto may be heard even through
position papers, memoranda, and the like.
(Paez, Angelina V., CSC Resolution No. 1200151, January 24, 2012)

- Due process in the administrative context does not require trial-type

proceedings similar to those in the courts of justice. xxx What is simply
required is that the party concerned is given due notice and is afforded an
opportunity or right to be heard. It is enough that the parties are given a fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and
to present evidence on which a fair decision can be made. xxx Where
opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or through pleadings,
there is no denial of procedural due process.
- (Bacsasar vs CSC, GR No. 180853, January 20, 2009)
Administrative Proceedings (Stage 3)

Penalties

Implementation
of Decision
D
E
C Yes
I Guilty
Motion for Appeal to Petition for
Reconsideration Review to CA
S CSC
then SC
I
O No Grounds
N

Dismiss
 DECISION OF DISCIPLINING AUTHORITY

- Suspension
- Reprimand exceeding 30 days
Dismissal from Service
- Suspension for
not more than - Fine exceeding 30
30 days days salary
- Fine in an MR
amount not
exceeding 30
days salary MR
APPEAL
APPEAL
Department
MR Secretary

Department CA, SC
Secretary
NOT Final
Final & NOT Executory
Executory
NOT Final
Violation of NOT Executory
NOT Due Process Confirmation
appealable Final and Executory

CSC (Commission Proper)

Executory Pending Appeal Executory Pending Appeal
What is the effect if there was a defect in the proceedings and the
respondent appeals his/her case?

“xxx any perceived defect in the conduct of administrative

investigation is deemed cured by the filing of motion for
reconsideration or an appeal from the decision or judgment being
contested.

In the case at bar, the institution of the appeal has effectively cured
whatever procedural defect, if there be any, that might have tainted
the proceeding undertaken by the PADC against Gonzales.”
(Gonzales, Josie H., CSC Decision No. 120886, December 28, 2012)
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES
 State Policy

It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of

ethics in the public service. It frowns upon and penalizes
disorderly behavior, unruly conduct and violation of civil
service rules.

(Quiros vs Orfila, AM No. P-26-1210, May 7, 1997)

Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees

1. Commitment to public interest

2. Professionalism
3. Justness and sincerity
4. Political neutrality
5. Responsiveness to the public
6. Nationalism and patriotism
7. Commitment to democracy
8. Simple living
- Republic Act No. 6713
 Duty of a public official or employee

“Every public officer is bound to use reasonable skill and

diligence in the performance of his official duties.
He is bound, virtuite office, to bring to the discharge of his duties
that prudence, caution and attention which careful men usually
exercise in the management of their affairs.
There is no question that the failure of a respondent to comply
with the laws governing and regulating his powers and duties, may
subject him to criminal and administrative sanctions.”
(Bron vs Delis, 80 SCRA 433)
 Duty of a public official or employee

The commission of graft and corrupt practices from

violation of any civil service rule is not necessary.
Public interest demands that public officers found
violating any Civil Service Rule should immediately be
disciplined.
(Ruelan vs CSC, 136 SCRA 230)
Three-Fold Responsibility Public Official or Employee

It is a basic principle of the law on public officers that a public

official or employee is under a three-fold responsibility for violation
of a duty or for a wrongful act or omission.
This simply means that a public officer may be held civilly,
criminally, and administratively liable for a wrongful doing.

(Tecson vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 123045, November 16, 1999)

Note: Administrative liability is separate and distinct from the penal and civil
liabilities.
 Principles of Law

Ignorantia Legis Non Excusat – Ignorance of the law excuses no

one.
A person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for
violating that law merely because one was unaware of it.

“He who comes to court must do so with clean hands.”

Nemo est supra legis – No one is above the law.

The law is supreme in a state. The law considers every citizen
equally. No one can take law into their hands supposing themselves
above the law.
 New Rules on Dishonesty

CSC Resolution No. 060538

Rules on the Administrative Offenses of Dishonesty (April 4, 2006)

CSC Resolution No. 061009

Amendment to CSC Resolution No. 060538 – Classifying the
offense of Dishonesty
 What is Dishonesty?

Dishonesty is the concealment or distortion of

truth, which shows lack of integrity or a
disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray
and an intent to violate the truth.
 Remolana vs CSC (GR No. 137473, August 2, 2001)

Dishonesty, xxx need not be committed in the course

of the performance of duty by the person charged. The
rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or
employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or
grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are
not connected with his office, they affect his right to
continue in office.
 Remolana vs CSC (GR No. 137473, August 2, 2001)
The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official,
even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of
his government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to
commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices
and entities of the government other than the office where he is
employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain
influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct,
oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to
counteract his evil acts and actuations.
The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his
public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or
employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the
service.
 Serious Dishonesty

a. The dishonest act caused serious damage and

grave prejudice to the government.
Falsified Entries in the DTR
(Office of the Ombudsman vs Torres, GR No. 168309, January 29, 2008)

Falsification of DTRs amounts to dishonesty. The evident purpose of requiring

government employees to keep a time record is to show the attendance in office to
work and to be paid accordingly. Closely adhering to the policy of no work-no
pay, a DTR is primarily, if not solely, intended to prevent damage or loss to the
government as would result in instances where it pays an employee for no work
done.

There is damage suffered by the government.

When respondents collected their salaries on the basis of falsified DTRs, they
caused injury to the government. The falsification of ones DTR to cover up ones
absences or tardiness automatically results in financial losses to the government
because it enables the employee concerned to be paid salaries and to earn leave
credits for services which were never rendered. Undeniably, the falsification of a
DTR foists a fraud involving government funds.
 Serious Dishonesty

b. The respondent gravely abused his authority in

order to commit the dishonest act.
Serious Dishonesty
(Reyes, Nicasio, CSC Decision No. 170134, September 20, 2017)

Facts:
Nicasio C. Reyes, general manager, City of Malolos Water District
(CMWD), claimed Representation and Transportation Allowances
(RATA) despite the fact that he is using a government issued vehicle
and is using purchase orders for gasoline from the CMWD in gassing
up his service vehicle.
Records show that he was paid RATA in the amount of P17,000 .
He certified that the amount was incurred in the performance of his
official functions and that he does not use any government vehicle for
the said amount.
Serious Dishonesty
(Reyes, Nicasio, CSC Decision No. 170134, September 20, 2017)

Held:
It was sufficiently established that Reyes committed the allegations imputed
against him. In the Certification for RATA issued by Reyes himself.
Reyes made it appear that he did not use any government vehicle in claiming the
amount of P17,000, representing his RATA for the month of July, when in fact,
records show and as stated in his Counter-Affidavit, a government service vehicle (a
Honda CRV with plate number SJB-555) was issued in his name and was actually
used by him.
Such misrepresentation of Reyes that he did not use any government vehicle,
which act enabled him to claim his TA for the month of July 2014 in the amount of
P17,000, constitutes the administrative offense of Serious Dishonesty. Without a
doubt, Reyes gravely abused his authority in committing the dishonest act. Had it
not been for the certification he issued, his TA for the month of July 2014 would not
have been given.
 Serious Dishonesty

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.
Accountable Officer
• Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code)
Section 340. Persons Accountable for Local Government Funds
Any officer of the LGU whose duty permits or requires the
possession or custody of local government funds shall be accountable
and responsible for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with the
provisions of this title. Other local officials, though not accountable by
the nature of their duties, may for local government funds through
their participation in the use or application thereof.
• COA Circular No. 80-124, January 18, 1980
An officer or employee who receives and is in actual possession or
physical control of the property shall sign a Memorandum Receipts
for property and shall be accountable therefor.
 Serious Dishonesty

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

the respondent.
(Moral depravity is a voluntary violation of morals, values, customs, or
manners.)

e. The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of

official documents in the commission of the dishonest act
related to his/her employment.
 Official Document

Example: Personal Data Sheet

It is the repository of all information about any
government employee and official regarding his personal
background, qualification, and eligibility.
Concealment of any information in the PDS, therefore,
warrants a penalty from the erring official.
(Advincula vs Dicen, GR No. 162403, May 16, 2005)
 Serious Dishonesty

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.
 Serious Dishonesty

Republic Act No. 9416 March 25, 2007

AN ACT DECLARING AS UNLAWFUL ANY FORM OF

CHEATING IN CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS,
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND POSSESSION OF CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION (CSC) EXAMINATION-RELATED MATERIALS,
AND GRANTING THE CSC EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER
THESE CASES INCLUDING THOSE COMMITTED BY PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS
 Serious Dishonesty

Republic Act No. 9416

SEC. 9. Administrative Liability. - Any person found administratively
liable under any of the acts mentioned above, shall be liable for
serious dishonesty and grave misconduct and shall be dismissed from
the service with all the accessory penalties for government employees.
Nongovernment employees found administratively liable shall be
perpetually barred from entering government service and from taking
any government examination.
 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.
 Less Serious Dishonesty
Light Rail Transit Authority vs Salvana
GR No. 192074, June 10, 2014

Application for sick leave supported by a false medical certificate.

Respondent’s application for sick leave, if approved, would allow her to be
absent from work without any deductions from her salary. Being a government
employee, respondent would have received her salaries coming from government
funds.
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 tantamount to causing damage or prejudice to the government since
she would have received compensation she was not entitled to receive.
 Less Serious Dishonesty

Light Rail Transit Authority vs Salvana

GR No. 192074, June 10, 2014

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.
 Simple Dishonesty

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

government
b. The dishonest act has 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. The dishonest act did not result in any gain or benefit to the
offender.
e. Other analogous circumstances.
 Neglect of Duty

“Negligence is the omission or refusal, without sufficient causes, to

perform an act or duty, which is the officer’s legal obligation to
perform”

(Morena, Henry P., CSC Resolution No. 00-1086, May 3, 2000)

Classification of Neglect of Duty

a. Grave Offense: Gross Neglect of Duty
b. Less Grave Offense: Simple Neglect of Duty
 Neglect of Duty

Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an

employee to give proper attention to a required task or to
discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference.
On the other hand, gross neglect of duty is characterized by
want of even the slightest care, or by conscious indifference
to the consequences, or by flagrant and palpable breach of
duty.
(CA vs Manabat, AM No. CA-11-24-P, November 16, 2011)
 Neglect of Duty

Gross neglect of duty implies wanton negligence and open

disregard for one’s duties and functions as exemplified by the
respondent’s failure to observe due diligence in guarding Sia,
who was not even handcuffed at that time, while the latter
was inside the bank’s premises.
(Ventayen, Ferdinand B., CSC Resolution No. 00-1453, June 16, 2000)
 Misconduct

Classification of Misconduct
a. Grave Offense: Grave Misconduct
b. Less Grave Offense: Less Grave Misconduct
 Misconduct

Grave Misconduct is an act that involves a breach of

good faith and right action that are impliedly required
to all officers. It is also a transgression of some
established and definite rule of act, more particularly
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer. It implies a wrongful intention and not a mere
error of judgment.
 Grave Misconduct

Misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting

removal from the office of an officer must have direct
relation to and be connected with the performance of
official duties amounting either to maladministration
or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge
the duties of the office.
(Amosco vs Magro, 73 SCRA 107)
 What is Service-Related Act?

- an act that is the consequence of the discharge of the

employee’s official functions or the performance of
his duties, or that is relevant to his office or to the
discharge of his official functions.
(Alarilla vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 136806, August 22, 2000)
 What is Service-Related Act?

- an act that is the consequence of the discharge of the

employee’s official functions or the performance of
his duties, or that is relevant to his office or to the
discharge of his official functions.
(Alarilla vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 136806, August 22, 2000)
 Grave vs Simple Misconduct

In grave misconduct, as distinguished from

simple misconduct, the elements of corruption,
clear intent to violate the law or flagrant
disregard of established rule, must be manifest.

(Landrito vs CSC, GR No. 223 SCRA 564)

 Grave vs Simple Misconduct

The court employee’s conduct of shouting at each other and

quarreling within the court premises and during working
hours were considered as exhibiting discourtesy and
disrespect to their co-workers and to the court itself.
Their behavior was held to be contrary to the ethical standard
demanded by RA 6713 (Conduct of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

(Quiros vs Orfila, AM No. P-96-1210, May 7, 1997)

 Being Notoriously Undesirable

This offense is based mainly on the general reputation of an

employee for being difficult to work with, due to his/her
quarrelsome attitude and/or repeated infractions of office
rules.
The focus in this offense is the totality of his conduct in the
office and not his liability for the individual acts.

(Laguilles, Cesar O., CSC Resolution No. 99-0026, January 6, 1999)

 Being Notoriously Undesirable
Villanueva vs Millan
AM No. P-02-1642, September 27, 2007

Facts: Violeta R. Villanueva, Clerk of Court of the MTC, Sto.

Tomas, La Union, filed a verified complain charging
respondent Armando T. Milan, Utility Worker of the same
court, for immorality, insubordination, falsification of entries
in the attendance logbook, habitual absenteeism, tardiness,
and undertime.
 Being Notoriously Undesirable
Villanueva vs Millan
AM No. P-02-1642, September 27, 2007

HELD: SC find respondent to be arrogantly indifferent to the

demands of his employment in the manner that is notoriously
undesirable and prejudicial to public service. His habitual absenteeism,
tardiness, and undertime, along with his insubordination, brazen
disregard of the rules and regulations pertaining to travel abroad or
resignation for that matter, and resort to a live-in relationship only to
advance a selfish and mercenary objective, are not simple
confirmations of individual transgressions of ethical conduct of an
overall obnoxious and scheming character.
 Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

Elements of the Offense of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral

Turpitude:

1. There was a conviction of a crime which has already attained

finality; and
2. The crime involves moral turpitude.

(Lemque, Emily C., CSC Resolution No. 160476, April 14, 2013)
 Moral Turpitude

"Moral turpitude" has been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in

the private and social duties which a man owes his fellow men to society in
general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between
man and woman or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
It implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact that it is punishable
by law or not. It must not merely be mala prohibita but, the act itself must be
inherently immoral. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute
fixes the moral turpitude.
Moral turpitude does not, however, include such acts as are not of themselves
immoral but whose illegality lies in the fact of their being positively prohibited.
Hence, the crime of illegal possession of firearm or ammunition does not involve
moral turpitude for under our laws, what is punishable is the possession of a
firearm or ammunition without a license or authority.
Cases on Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude:
1. Drug Pushing
2. Adultery
3. Concubinage
4. Rape
5. Arson
6. Evasion of income tax
7. Barratry (Ambulance chasing)
8. Blackmail
9. Bigamy
10. Bribery
Cases on Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude:
11. Fabrication of evidence
12. Offenses against pension laws
13. Perjury
14. Seduction under promise of marriage
15. Estafa
16. Falsification of Public Document
17. Estafa through falsification of public document.
(Zari vs Flores, 94 SCRA 317)
In the administrative offense of Conviction
of a Crime involving Moral Turpitude, is it
necessary that the offense should be
committed while the respondent was
already in government service?
Lemque, Emily C.
CSC Resolution No. 160476, April 14, 2013
HELD: xxx a concurrence of the two elements for the offense of
Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude is the only
condition necessary to support a conviction in said administrative
case. There is nothing in law nor jurisprudence which proclaims that
the offense should be committed while the respondent was already in
government service as this particular matter is not an element of the
offense.
On this premise, Lemque’s contention that she cannot be held
administratively liable considering that the act subject of the case
was committed prior to her entrance to government service must fail.
 Falsification of Official Document
- is knowingly making false statements in official or public documents.

Presumption of Law:
The person who stood to benefit by the falsification of a public document
and was in possession of it is presumed to be the material author of the
falsification.
(Sps Villamar vs People of the Philippines, GR No. 178652, December 9,
2010)
It is an established rules that when a person has in his possession a falsified
document and makes use of the same, the presumption or inference is justified
that such person is the forger.
(People vs Manansala, 105 Phil 1253)
Receiving for personal use of a fee, gift or other valuable
thing in the course of official duties or in connection
therewith
- When such fee, gift or other valuable thing is given by any
person in the hope or expectation of receiving a favor or
better treatment than that accorded to other persons, or
committing acts punishable under the Anti-Graft Laws.
- RA 6713
- RA 3019
- PD 46
Soliciting or accepting directly or indirectly any gift,
gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value in the course of one’s official duties or in
connection with any operation being regulated by, or any
transaction which may be affected by the functions of one’s
office.
- the propriety or impropriety of the foregoing shall be
determined by its value, kinship, or relationship between
giver and receiver and the motivation.
- A thing of monetary value is one which is evidently or
manifestly excessive by its very nature.
 Nepotism

- Favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship (Merriam

Webster)
- Memorandum Circular No. 24, S. 2017 (ORAOHRA):
Nepotism
Nepotism
Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines and to the Filipino
People

- Abandonment or renunciation of one’s loyalty

to the Government of the Philippines, or
advocating the overthrow of the Government.
Grave Offenses
Grave Offenses
Grave Offenses
 Oppression

- An act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction,

domination or excessive use of authority
(CSC Resolution No. 95-2125, March 21, 1995)
 Oppression

Is the filing of administrative charges, conduct of an

investigation and rendering a decision an act of oppression?

In Tayabas, Benjamin, CSC Resolution No. 92-2129, March

21, 1995, the CSC ruled that the filing of administrative
charges, conduct of an investigation and rendering a decision
are powers conferred on a disciplining authority. When any
or all of these powers are exercised, it cannot be considered
as acts of oppression unless bad faith, bias and partiality are
very evident.
 Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct

- Refers to acts which violate the basic norms of decency,

morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the
society. (CSC MC No. 15, s. 2010)
- Classifications of DIC:
1. DIC in the workplace
2. DIC through a Forbidden Relationship
3. DIC committed through Inherently Immoral Acts
 Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct in the Workplace

- The conduct of parties, regardless of marital status,

constitutes DIC in the workplace when ANY of the
following circumstances are present:
a. The DIC was committed in the workplace in a scandalous
manner.
b. The DIC was committed by taking advantage of one’s
position and/or with the use of government property and
resources.
c. The DIC affect the work performance of the respondents
Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct through Forbidden Relationship

- The parties are engaged in a relationship forbidden under

the law.

- There should be legal impediment.

Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct through Inherently Immoral Acts

- The conduct consists of immoral and deviant acts which are

inherently forbidden by the basic norms of decency,
morality, and decorum such as, but not limited to:
- incest
- pedophilla
- exhibitionism and the like
- whether the conduct was committed in a discreet or
scandalous manner
- whether committed within or out of the workplace
Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties

- Incompetence has been defined as “lack of ability, legal

qualification or fitness to discharge the required duty, or
want of physical or intellectual or moral fitness. (Homecillo,
Carmelito, CSC Resolution No. 97-0792, January 28, 1997)

- Inefficiency implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance,

and carelessness. (Suroza vs Honrado, 110 SCRA 388)
 Frequent Unauthorized Absences (Absenteeism)

- Could either be a grave offense or light office depending on

the frequency of its commission and its effects to the
general service.
- Habitual Absenteeism: officer or employee incurs
unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days
monthly leave credit three (3) consecutive months during
the year. (Sec. 22 [q], Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book of EO
292)
CSC Memorandum No. 1, series of 2017
Habitual Tardiness in reporting for duty causing prejudice to
the operation of the office
 Policy on Undertime
• CSC MC No. 16, s. 2010
 Policy on Half Day Absence
• CSC MC No. 17, s. 2010
 Loafing

- Frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular

office hours. The word frequent connotes that the
employees absent themselves from duty more than once.
(Roman vs Fortalez, AM No. P-10-2865, November 22, 2010)
 Refusal to Perform Official Duty

Elements:
1. The refusal is willful.
2. Duties and Responsibilities as public officer
3. No relationship between supervisor and subordinate

Illustrative case:
a. Policeman refuses to render assistance
b. Fire Officer refuses to assist during a fire incident
 Gross Insubordination

The offense of insubordination is defined as “refusal to

obey some order which a superior officer is entitled to give
and have obeyed.
The term imports a willful or intentional disregard of the
lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer.

(Homecillo, Carmelito V., CSC Resolution No. 97-0792, January 28, 1997)
 Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service

- The generic / catch-all offense.

- The acts complained of need not be related or connected
to the public officer’s official functions as long as the
questioned conduct tarnished the image and integrity of
his/her public office.
(Largo vs CA, GR No. 177244, November 20, 2002)
 Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service

Examples:
1. Misappropriation of public funds
2. Abandonment of office
3. Failure to report back to work without prior notice
4. Failure to safe keep public records and property
5. Making false entries in public documents and
falsification of court orders.
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
Less Grave Offenses
Less Grave Offenses
 Discourtesy

- Classified as Less Grave and Simple.

- incivility, ill-manners, rudeness of behavior or language
- an impolite act

Illustrative cases:
1. Uttering offensive words to the complainant without due
regard to her rank and age. This is not acting in a proper
manner required of a civil servant while in the office during
office hours. (Torres, Trinidad, CSC Res. No. 96-4617)
 Discourtesy
Illustrative cases:
2. It is the policy of the state to promote a high standard if ethics in the public
service. Public Officials and employees are under obligation to perform the duties
of their offices honestly, faithfully and to the best of their ability. They, as
recipients of the public trust, should demonstrate courtesy, civility, and self-
restraint in their official actuations to the public at all times even when
confronted with rudeness and insulting behavior.
Losing one’s temper by loudly uttering unsavory remarks and pointing a finger at
a litigant or any other person for that matter exhibits a failure on the part of
respondent to act with self-restraint and civility. High-strung and belligerent
behavior has no place in the government service; especially when done at the
workplace and during working hours, such conduct shows discourtesy and
disrespect not only towards the public but to the court as well.
(Policarpo vs Fortus, AM No. P-91-114, September 18, 1995)
 Violation of Civil Service Rules and Regulations

CSC MC No. 17, series 2009

“Smoking Prohibition on 100% Smoke-Free Environment”
Any violation of this circular shall be considered a ground for
disciplinary action pursuant to Rule XIV (Discipline) of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292
 Habitual Drunkeness
That degree of intemperance from the use of intoxicating drinks which
disqualifies the person a great portion of the time from properly attending
to business, or which would reasonably inflict a course of great mental
anguish upon the innocent party.
CSC MC No. 4, s. 2011, February 16, 2011
As a rule, the consumption of alcoholic beverages such as but not
limited to malt beverages, wine, and intoxicating liquor in the workplace
among government officials and employees during office hours is
prohibited.
It must be stressed that the mere consumption of alcoholic beverages
during office hours as well as reporting for work while under the
influence of alcohol shall be considered as administrative offenses
separate and distinct from the offense of Habitual Drunkeness.
 Habitual Drunkeness

Exception:
a. Consumption of alcoholic beverages may be allowed during
programs and rituals such as ceremonial toasts and
observance/honoring of local customs and traditional.
- Alcoholic beverages to be used should be limited to malt beverages
and wine. Its consumption shall not be to such extent that the concerned
official or employee will be intoxicated.
- The consumption of alcoholic beverages may be done only after prior
permission is secured from the HO.
(CSC MC No. 4, s. 2011, February 16, 2011)
 Failure to file SALN

CSC Resolution No. 1300174, January 24, 2013, re:

Amendment to CSC MC No. 10, s. 2006

Failure to file SALN includes:

1. Failing to comply within the 30 day period required under
Sec. 3 of the amendment; and
2. Submission of the SALN beyond 30 day period
Engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political activities by
one holding non-political office

Comelec and CSC JC No. 01, s. 2016

“Joint COMELEC-CSC Advisory o Electioneering Partisan Political
Activities”

Excluded Activities:
f.) Social Media functions such as “liking”, commenting, sharing re
posting, or following a candidate’s party’s account, unless these are
resorted as a means to solicit support for or against a candidate or party
during the campaign period.
Light Offenses
Light Offenses
Light Offenses
 Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations

Gonzales, Josie H.
CSC Decision No. 120886, December 28, 2013
“for one to be charged and found guilty of violation
of reasonable office rules and regulation, the rule or
regulation transgressed or violated should be identified
or proven.
 Willful Failure to pay just debts or to pay taxes due to the
government
Just debts shall apply only to:
1. Claims adjudicated by a court of law, or
2. Claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the
debtor.

Two elements:
1. The existence of just debts; and
2. There is willful failure to pay on the part of the person complained
of.
Other Specific Offenses
Other Specific Offenses
Other Specific Offenses
Other Specific Offenses
Other Specific Offenses
Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
What will happen if an officer / employee is found guilty in
committing multiple offenses?
Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain Penalties
Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain Penalties
 NON- DISCIPLINARY
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
 Non-Disciplinary Cases

Rule 17 - Invalidation or Disapproval of Appointment

Rule 18 - Protest and Revocation of Appointment
Rule 19 - Correction of Personal Information in the Records
of the Commission
Rule 20 - Dropping from the Rolls
Rule 17 - Invalidation or Disapproval of Appointment
Where to Appeal Invalidated or Disapproved Appointments?
Rule 18 - Protest and Revocation of Appointment
RECALL
Rule 19 - Correction of Personal Information in the Records
of the Commission
 Rule 20 - Dropping from the Rolls

• Officers
and employees who are absent without
approved leave
• Unsatisfactory or poor performance
• Shown to be physically or mentally unfit to
perform their duties
Absence Without Approved Leave (AWOL)
Unsatisfactory or Poor Performance
Unsatisfactory or Poor Performance
Physical Unfitness
Mental Disorder
Effect of Dropping from the Rolls
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!