CSC vs Cortez

June 3, 2004
Per Curiam
Facts:

Respondent Delia Cortez, Chief Personnel Specialist of the Examination

and Placement Services Division (EPSD) of CSRO 10, Cagayan de Oro
City, was charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct
grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service

Pertinent portions of the formal charge read as follows:

1. 2 teenagers, Abina and Ofredo went to the CSRO for filing
application forms for the Career Service Professional
Examination for their aunt
2. They proceeded to the Cashier's Office to purchase the
required examination fee stamps. A personnel from the
Cashiers Office told them to first proceed to the EPSD for the
approval of the said application forms
3. When Abina and Ofredo presented the said application forms,
respondent Cortez pasted a stamp worth P150.00 on each of
the application forms. Thereafter, she asked from them the
payment corresponding to the value of the stamps pasted on
the said application forms
4. Thet returned to the Cashiers Office to inquire as to whether
there are still other fees to be paid. But when the Cashier saw
that the said application forms were already pasted with
stamps, she examined the same and she noted that the serial
numbers of the said stamps did not correspond with the serial
numbers of the stamps issued to said Office
5. This prompted the cashier to proceed to the EPSD and
confronted respondent on the unauthorized selling of stamps.
Consequently, respondent immediately removed the stamps
from the application forms and brought out the money which
Abina and Ofredo earlier gave her and handed the same to the
Cashier who subsequently issued them another stamps
6. The stamps which respondent Cortez sold were issued way
back in 1995 for the Professional Board Examination for
Teachers (PBET)

Respondent filed an answer denying the charges against her

CSC- Respondent was guilty of illegally selling recycled stamps for her
own financial gain, an act which constituted dishonesty, grave
misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the
service. It ordered respondent dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from reemployment in the
government service, without prejudice to any civil or criminal liability

CA- Penalty of dismissal was too harsh considering (a) her 21 years of
service in the government, (b) it was her first offense and (c) that no
damage was sustained by the Government. It modified the penalty
imposed on respondent from dismissal to that of forced resignation
with entitlement to all the benefits under the law
Issue: WON the penalty of dismissal is too harsh
Held: No

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby

REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Resolution of the Civil Service Commission
dismissing respondent from the service with forfeiture of leave credits and
retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility and disqualification from
reemployment in the government service, without prejudice to civil or
criminal liability in a proper action, is hereby REINSTATED
Ratio:

Respondents guilt has long been settled when she did not question
before the CA the decision of the CSC finding her guilty. What
respondent questioned was the penalty of dismissal imposed on her,
which she considered too harsh considering her length of service and
that it was her first offense

Under the Civil Service Law and its implementing rules, dishonesty,
grave misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest
of the service are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the
service

Thus, as provided by law, there is no other penalty that should be

imposed on respondent than the penalty of dismissal

Of course, the rules allow the consideration of mitigating and

aggravating circumstances and provide for the manner of imposition of
the proper penalty

Section 54 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil

Service:
Section 54. Manner of imposition. When applicable, the
imposition of the penalty may be made in accordance with the
manner provided herein below:
a. The minimum of the penalty shall be imposed where only
mitigating and no aggravating circumstances are present
b. The medium of the penalty shall be imposed where no
mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present
c. The maximum of the penalty shall be imposed where only
aggravating and no mitigating circumstances are present
d. Where aggravating and mitigating circumstances are present,
paragraph (a) shall be applied where there are more mitigating
circumstances present; paragraph (b) shall be applied when
the circumstances equally offset each other; and paragraph (c)
shall be applied when there are more aggravating
circumstances

Under the facts of this case, respondent is not entitled to a lower

penalty
Length of Service

Length of service should be taken against the respondent. Length of

service is not a magic word that, once invoked, will automatically be
considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party invoking
it. Length of service can either be a mitigating or aggravating
circumstance depending on the factual milieu of each case. Length of
service, in other words, is an alternative circumstance

University of the Philippines vs. Civil Service Commission- SC

did not consider length of service in favor of respondent; instead, it
took it against respondent because her length of service, among other

things, helped her in the commission of the offense

Yuson vs. Noel- The mere length of his service cannot mitigate the
gravity of his offense or the penalty he deserves. It is clear from facts
here established that the respondent does not deserve to remain in the
Judiciary, where integrity is an indispensable credential

Concerned Employee vs. Nuestro- The recommendation of 6

months suspension is therefore too lenient in view of the gravity of the
offense charged. It may be true that respondent has been in the
service for eleven years but she has blemished her record irreparably
and we believe that her dismissal is warranted

Applying the above-cited cases to the case at bar, length of service

cannot be considered in favor of the respondent because of the gravity
of the offense she committed and of the fact that it was her length of
service in the CSC which helped her in the commission of the offense

Respondent was in the CSC for 21 years. Surely, respondent earned the
last position because of her length of service in the CSC. As Chief of
the EPSD, she naturally had access to the previously processed and
approved application forms wherefrom she detached the stamps and
later on sold to new civil service examination applicants and pocketed
the proceeds of the sale. It is worthy to note that the stamps
respondent was caught selling were issued in 1995, the time
respondent was already in the EPSD, serving as its chief. Respondents
length of service in the CSC, therefore, clearly helped her in the
commission of the offense
Gravity of the Offense

As to the gravity of the offense, it is clear from the ruling of the CSC
that respondents act irreparably tarnished the integrity of the CSC.
Respondent was the Chief of the EPSD, but despite such important and
senior position which should have impelled her to set a good example
to her co-employees and other civil servants, respondent flagrantly
and shamelessly violated the law by selling, for her own financial gain,
used examination fee stamps, right in her own office and during office
hours

Such flagrant and shameless disregard of the law by a senior officer

seriously undermined the integrity of the CSC, the body mandated by
the Constitution to preserve and safeguard the integrity of the civil
service. She should be a model of honesty and integrity. By irreparably
tarnishing the integrity of the Civil Service Commission, respondent did
not deserve to stay in the said agency and in the government service

The gravity of the offense committed is also the reason why the SC
cannot consider the "first offense" circumstance invoked by
respondent. In several cases, the court imposed the heavier penalty of
dismissal considering the gravity of the offense committed, even if the
offense charged was respondents first offense

Thus, in the present case, even though the offense respondent was
found guilty of was her first offense, the gravity thereof outweighs the
fact that it was her first offense
Damage to the Government

Respondent insists that she is entitled to a penalty lesser than

dismissal because no damage was caused to the Government; she
returned the money to the complainants and the latter thereafter paid
the Cashiers Office for the proper issuance of examination fee stamps.
She further emphasizes that the money involved was only six hundred
pesos, not a "multi-million pesos scam."

These arguments show respondents distorted sense of values. It

seems all right for respondent to steal from the government as long as
it does not involve millions of pesos

Respondent should be reminded that a public servant must exhibit at

all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity for no less than the
Constitution mandates that a public office is a public trust and 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