ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES

DISHONESTY
PENALTY

SERIOUS

LESS SERIOUS

SIMPLE

Dismissal
from the
service

1st offense
-6 months and 1
day to 1 year

1st offense
- 1 month & 1
day to 6 months

2nd offense
- Dismissal from
the service

2nd offense
- 6 months and 1
day to 1 year
3rd offense
- dismissal

NEGLECT OF DUTY
SERIOUS
PENALTY

Dismissal from
the service

SIMPLE
1st offense
- 1 month & 1 day to 6
months
2nd offense
- 6 months and 1 day to 1
year

DISHONESTY
DEGREE
OF
DAMAGE

SERIOUS

LESS SERIOUS

SIMPLE

Serious and
grave
prejudice to
government

Damage and
prejudice to the
government is
not so serious

Act did not cause

damage and
prejudice to the
government

DISHONESTY
SERIOUS
RELATION
S TO
FUNCTION
S

Directly
related with
duties/
functions

LESS
SERIOUS

SIMPLE

No direct
No direct
relation to or
relation to or
does not involve
does not
the duties and
involve the
responsibilities
duties and
of the
responsibilities
respondent
of the
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
Misconduct?

of

Grave

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
theDavaoInternationalAirport,
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 theDavaoMedicalCenterwhere 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 clientagency 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
1970

Hill

Americanauthor,1883-