VOL.

450, FEBRUARY 10, 2005 579

Dismissal of Public Officers and Employees Due to
Dishonesty

ANNOTATION

DISMISSAL OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

DUE TO DISHONESTY
By *
ALICIA GONZALEZ-DECANO

_____________________

Preliminary Statement

The respondent was charged of forging the complainantÊs

signature and encashing Landbank Check No. 0000008982
in the amount of P1,060; taking and encashing three of the
complainantÊs checks and checks of other court employees.
The case was investigated by RTC Judge Arthur L. Ventura
who recommended a mere reprimand but the office of the
Court Administrator thought otherwise. Dismissal was the
recommended penalty for grave offense of dishonesty. The
ruling of the OCA was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Dishonesty Defined

Before delving on the main issue of dishonesty, this writer

deems it wise to define dishonesty:
DISHONESTY. According to WebsterÊs Dictionary,
dishonesty is a quality of deceiving, stealing or the quality
of being dishonest. Dishonesty implies the act or practice of
telling a lie or of cheating, deceiving or stealing; quality of
being deceitful which implies an intent to make someone
believe what is not true, as by giving a false appearance,
using fraud, etc.
_______________

* Law Professor, University of Pangasinan, Consultant and

Professorial Lecturer, UST Graduate School of Law.

580

580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dismissal of Public Officers and Employees Due to
Dishonesty

According to SibalÊs Philippine Legal Encyclopedia,

dishonesty means an absence of integrity, a disposition to
betray, cheat, deceive or defraud, bad faith. (Arca vs.
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, CA-G.R. No.
17679-R, November 24, 1958)

Dismissal of Public Officers and Employees by

Reason of Dishonesty.

Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution under

Accountability of Public Officers provides:

„Section 1. 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‰.

The Civil Service Rules Laws and Rules, Book V of

Executive Order No. 292 and Omnibus Rules under Section
23 provides:

Section 23. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties

are classified into grave, less grave, and light depending on the
gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the government
services. The following are grave offenses with its corresponding
penalties. For academic purposes, the enumerations are completely
listed.

The following are grave offenses with its corresponding

penalties:

(a) Dishonesty: 1st Offense·Dismissal

(b) Gross neglect of duty: 1st Offense·Dismissal
(c) Grave misconduct: 1st Offense·Dismissal
(d) Being notoriously undesirable: 1st Offense·
Dismissal
(e) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude: 1st
Offense·Dismissal
(f) Falsification of official document: 1st Offense·
Dismissal

581

VOL. 450, FEBRUARY 10, 2005 581

Dismissal of Public Officers and Employees Due to
Dishonesty

(g) Physical or mental incapacity or disability due to

vicious habits 1st Offense·Dismissal
(h) Engaging directly or in directly in partisan political
activities by one holding non-political office; 1st
Offense·Dismissal
(i) 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 of
expectation of receiving a favor or better treatment
than that accorded to other persons or committing
acts punishable under the anti-graft laws: 1st
Offense·Dismissal
(j) Contracting loans of money or other property from
persons with whom the office or the employee has
business relations: 1st Offense·Dismissal.
(k) Soliciting or accepting directly or indirectly, any
gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything
or monetary value which in the course of his official
duties or in connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction which may be
affected by the functions of his 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 or
monetary is one which is evidently or manifestly
excessive by its very nature, 1st Offense·Dismissal
(l) Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines and to
the Filipino people: 1st Offense·Dismissal
(m) Nepotism: 1st Offense·Dismissal
 (n) Oppression: 1st Offense·Dismissal
(o) Disgraceful and immoral conduct 1st Offense·
Suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one
(1) year; 2nd Offense·Dismissal
(p) Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of
official duties; 1st Offense. Suspension for six (6)
moths and one (1) day to one (1) year 2nd Offense·
Dismissal.
(q) Frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness in
reporting for duty, loafing or frequent unauthorized
absences from duty during regular office hours: 1st
Offense. Sus-

582

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dismissal of Public Officers and Employees Due to
Dishonesty

pension for six (6) moths and one (1) day to one (1)
year, 2nd Offense·Dismissal
(r) Refusal to perform official duty: 1st Offense,
Suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one
(1) year; 2nd Offense·Dismissal.
(s) Gross Insubordination: 1st Offense, Suspension for
six months and one (1) day to one (1) year; 2nd
Offense·Dismissal.
(t) Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of
the service: 1st Offense, Suspension for six (6)
months and one (1) day to one (1) year; 2nd Offense
·Dismissal.
(u) Directly or indirectly having financial and material
interest in any transaction requiring the approval
of his office. Financial and material interest is
defined as pecuniary or proprietary interest by
which person will gain or lose something. 1st
Offense, Suspension for six (6) months and one (1)
day to one (1) year; 2nd Offense·Dismissal
(v) Owning, controlling, managing or accepting
employment as officer, employee, consultant,
counsel, broker, agent, trustee, or nominee in any
private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed
by his office, unless expressly allowed by law: 1st
 Offense, Suspension for six (6) months and one (1)
day to one (1) year; 2nd Offense·Dismissal
(w) Engaging in the practice of his profession unless
authorized by the constitution, law or regulation,
provided that such practice will not conflict with his
official functions; 1st Offense, Suspension for six (6)
months and one (1) day to one (1) year; 2nd Offense
·Dismissal
(x) Disclosing or misusing confidential or classified
information officially known to him by reason of his
office and not made available to the public, to
further his private interests or give undue
advantage to anyone or to prejudice the public
interest: 1st Offense, Suspension for six (6) months
and one (1) day to one (1) year; 2nd Offense·
Dismissal.
(y) Obtaining or using any statement filed under the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees for any purpose contrary to
morals

583

VOL. 450, FEBRUARY 10, 2005 583

Dismissal of Public Officers and Employees Due to
Dishonesty

or public policy or any commercial purpose other

than by news and communications media for
dissemination to the general public: 1st Offense,
Suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one
(1) year; 2nd Offense·Dismissal

The following cases illustrate how public officers and

employees were meted the penalty of dismissal as provided
for by law:
1. Remolina vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
137473, August 2, 2001 Case Digests of Supreme Court
Decisions, August 2, 2001, Vol. 52, No. 2, p. 234; 362 SCRA
304, 313. The Supreme Court through Justice Reynato
Puno, ruled:

„x x x The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officers

and employees enumerates the state policy of promoting a high
standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. It
cannot be denied that dishonesty is considered a grave offense
punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule
XIV of the Rules of Implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
292 and the rule is that dishonesty in order to warrant dismissal,
need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty by
the person charged. The rationale for the rule is that of 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. 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 fellowmen, 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 x x x.‰

2. In an another case, Teresita Romero, complainant, vs.

Enriquita Castellano, Court stenographer, respondent,
A.M.

584

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dismissal of Public Officers and Employees Due to
Dishonesty

No. P93-960, November 18, 2002, 392 SCRA 1, the

Supreme Court held:

„x x x we agree with the recommendations of both the investigating

judge and Deputy Court Administrator. Based on the records of the
case, we find respondent guilty of gross dishonesty and grave
misconduct which warrant her dismissal from the service. x x x The
respondentÊs acts of appropriating for her benefit complainantÊs
salaries by falsifying complainantÊs daily time records and special
power of attorney constitute gross dishonesty and grave
misconduct. She should be disqualified from the judiciary where
employees are expected to possess integrity, uprightness and
honesty x x x‰

The Supreme Court continued in its mandate by saying:

„x x x The Court has ruled time and again that, by the very nature
of their tasks and responsibilities, all those involved in the
administration of justice, from the highest official to the lowliest
clerk, must faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate and invigorate the
principle solemnly enshrined in Section 1 of Article XI of the 1987
Philippine Constitution that „A public office is a public trust.
All 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.‰ The Court
condemns any conduct, act, or omission on the part of the all those
involved in the administration of justice which will violate the norm
of public accountability and will diminish or tend to diminish the
faith of the people in the judiciary. RespondentÊs betrayal of the
trust and confidence reposed in her by complainant who was her
very dear friend indicates a serious character flaw which makes her
unfit to serve the judiciary. As keenly observed by the investigating
judge:
„[Respondent] miserably failed to keep up the strictest standards
of conduct required of court personnel who, upon assumption of
duty, must have to live up to the standards of honesty and integrity
not only in public service but also in the conduct of their public lives
as well. x x x‰

Continuing in its per curiam resolution, the Supreme Court

held:

585

VOL. 450, FEBRUARY 10, 2005 585

Dismissal of Public Officers and Employees Due to
Dishonesty

x x x we also agree with the recommendation that complainant

herself should also be severely reprimanded for her failure to
strictly observe the administrative rules and procedures in filing an
application for leave of absence x x x.

3. The Supreme Court in Administrative Matter No. SCC-

00-6-P, October 16, 2003, 413 SCRA 520, Re: Memorandum
dated 27 September, 1999 of Ma. Corazon M. Molo, OIC,
Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court
Administrator on the Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct of
Datu Alykhan T. Amilbangsa, Clerk of Court, ShariaÊh
Circuit Court, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi, ruled:

„x x x The failure of the Clerk of Court to turn over money deposited

with him and adequately explain and present evidence thereon
constitutes gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even
malversation of public funds which this court will never
countenance as they indubitably diminish the faith of the people in
the judiciary.
No position demands greater moral righteousness and
uprightness from the occupant than the judicial office. Those
connected with the dispensation of justice bear a heavy burden of
responsibility. Clerks of Court in particular, must be individuals of
competence, honesty and probity, charged as they are with
safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. This
court has consistently held that person involved in the
administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standards
of honesty and integrity in the public service. The conduct required
of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk,
must always be beyond reproach.

The court is left with no choice but to declare the

respondent guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct.
Dishonesty alone, being in the nature of a grave offense,
carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service
with the forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued
leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for
reemployment in the government service.
4. In the case of Judge Normandie B. Pizaro,
Complainant vs. Wilfredo Villegas, utility worker,
respondent, A.M. No.

586

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dismissal of Public Officers and Employees Due to
Dishonesty

P-97-1243, November 20, 2000, 345 SCRA 42, 48, the

Supreme Court held:

„x x x In the present case, it was clearly established that respondent

forged complainantÊs signature in the Indorsement recommending
the formerÊs appointment as utility worker. His misconduct
constitutes grave dishonesty that disqualifies him from the
judiciary. Indeed, utility workers come into contact with pleadings
and other official documents received and processed by trial courts;
hence a modicum of honesty is expected and required of them
RespondentÊs action however, is a blatant disregard for the values of
integrity uprightness and honesty, which are expected of all court
personnel.

We stress that the conduct of even minor employees

mirrors the image of the courts they serve; thus, they are
required to preserve the judiciaryÊs good name and
standing as a true temple of justice. This Court has often
reminded its personnel of the high norm of public service it
requires, as follows:

„We condemn and would never countenance any conduct, act or

omission on the part of all those involved of the administration of
justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and
diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the
judiciary. Every one connected in the task of delivery of justice, from
the lowliest employee to the highest official, most at all times be
fully aware of the sacramental nature of their function.‰ (Atty.
Jesusa Maningas, et al. vs. Carlito C. Barcenas, A.M. No. P-99-
1315, November 3, 1999, 317 SCRA 721, per curiam)

5. In the Re: Report of the Financial Audit Conducted on

the Accounts of Clerk of Court Zenaida Garcia, MTC,
Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, A.M. No. 97-1-03, MTC, February 15,
1999, 303 SCRA 142, 146, the Supreme Court in its per
curiam resolution ruled:

„x x x We fully agree with the OCA that Zenaida Garcia should be

dismissed from the service. She committed gross dishonesty, grave
misconduct, and conduct highly prejudicial to the best interest of
the service. Then she left the service without seeking permission

587

VOL. 450, FEBRUARY 10, 2005 587

Dismissal of Public Officers and Employees Due to Dishonesty

or informing her superior of her whereabouts, thereby rendering it

difficult for the Government to locate her. In misappropriating
public funds, abandoning her office, and never reporting back to
work, she openly disregarded the public trust character of her office.
This court had said before, and reiterates it here, that the
administration of justice is a sacred task. By the very nature of
 their duties and responsibilities, all those involved in the
administration of justice from the highest official to the lowliest
clerk of court, must faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, the principle
solemnly enshrined in Section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution
that public office is a public trust x x x‰

CONCLUSION

It is to be remembered that no less than the Constitution

mandates that all public officers and employees from the
highest to the lowest rank should serve with responsibility,
integrity and efficiency. Thus, the conduct and behavior of
everyone connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice from the presiding judge to the
lowliest clerk is circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. The judiciary expects the best from all its
employees who must be paradigms in the administration of
justice (Iboy vs. Lion, 340 SCRA 107 [2000]). The conduct of
each employee of a court of justice must, at all times, not
only be characterized with propriety and decorum, but
above all else, be above suspicion. (Leonor vs. Delfin, 314
SCRA 10 [1999])

··o0o··

588

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.