ec CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ery FAJARDO, Genaro, Jr. Re: Grave Misconduct; Conduct Prejudicial Number:_170386 to the Best Interest of the Service Promutgatea: 1 8MAY 2017 (LSP Scholar) (Petition for Review) (0172004517) DECISION Genaro N. Fajardo, Jr, former Municipal Accountant, Municipal Government of Nabua, Camarines Sur, filed an Appeal treated as a Petition for Review from Decision No. 160116 dated May 20, 2016 of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSC RO) V, Legazpi City, finding him guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service with all the accessory penalties. Pertinent portions of the assailed Decision No. 160116 dated May 20, 2016 issued by CSC RO V read, as follow: xxx “Records show that FAJARDO had been repeatedly informed of his obligation to submit to this Office proof of completion of his studies, otherwise he will be required to refund as indicated in the contract. However, he failed to comply with the directives. Corollary to this omission is his liability to refund the expenses incurred by this Office for his studies. “The mechanics for refund, as embodied in Resolution No. 050954, clearly specifies that ‘Administrative charges for Grave Misconduct or conduct prejudicial o the best interest of the service may be filed by the CSCRO against the LSP scholar who fails to refund in three years based on factual circumstances that led to the failure of the scholar to refund and after due process.” Based on records, the demand for him 1o refuund was sent on February 26, 2009. A subsequent letter was sent to him reiterating the same order. He was given the chance to comment through the show-cause order and notice of charge, but he failed to respond to these as well. He likewise failed to appear on the scheduled Clarificatory Conference. In the light of the sufficient notice to FAJARDO and his non-compliance therewith, the charge for Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service is proper. C. Ina Race to Serve: Responsive, Accessible, Courteous and Effective Public Service [SICSC Building, IBP Road, Constitution Hills, 1126 Quezon City + 8 931-7935/931-7939/931-8092 « El esephil@webmal.cse-gov.ph = g www.cse,gov.ph& Fojardo, G. Page 2 of 11 xxx “WHEREFORE, Genaro N. Fajardo, Jr. is held GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and is meted with the penalty of DISMISSAL from the Service and its accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits except terminal leave credits and personal contributions to the GSIS, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking civil service examinations, in accordance with the rules.” In his Pe ion for Review dated January 19, 2017, Fajardo averred that: xxx “5. In addition, the factual circumstances that led to his failure to refund are excusable, As stated above, respondent, on the pertinent dates, was on official leave, then retired from service, and then was already residing in the United States of America. A copy of the pertinent pages of his Passport indicating the date of his departure/arrival when he was on leave and subsequent departure for good when he retired as well as his Identification Card/Driver's License ‘from the State of Maryland, USA x x x. “6, Further, respondent was deprived of due process of law. The questioned Decision states that a letter reiterating the directive to refund was sent to him on September 13, 2010 but no compliance from the respondent. Subsequently, a show cause order was sent on October 18, 2012 but no answer was given. A clarificatory conference was scheduled on July 15, 2015 but respondent failed 10 appear. “7. Respondent categorically states that he never received a copy of the said show-cause order and the notice for the clarificatory conference. He also did rnot receive any formal charge or order to file his counter-affidavit. “8. As discussed above, respondent was on official leave of absence from February 22, 2012 to May 31, 2013 (Annexes ‘D’ to ‘F'). During this period, ‘he was mostly out of the country and was in the United States of America. He reported back for work from June 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 (Annex ‘F'). He did not receive any show-cause order or preliminary conference order. He did not see such an Order when he reinstated. Effective January 1, 2014, respondent retired from the service (Annex 'C’). His retirement was with the ‘appropriate clearance(s) and a matter of public record (Annex ‘G’), If indeed CSCRO sent the appropriate notices to the respondent, most especially after his retirement, he could not have received the same, if addressed at the Municipal Government of Nabua because he was no longer connected therewith, or if addressed at his residence, because he was no longer residing there, From the 6& Fojardo, G. Page 3 of 11 time of his retirement up to the present, respondent has been living in the United States of America with his family. His house in the Philippines is closed and vacant, without an occupant, Just to be sure, afier respondent came to know about the case, respondent's representative inspected his house but no such orders/notices were found therein. “9. The fact that respondent was able to file a Motion for Reconsideration does not cure the lack of due process in this case. Respondent was deprived of not Just procedural due process but also substantive due process. Substantive due process requires that the finding of guilt against respondent must be for a valid cause and with factual basis. There can be no failure to refund if the requirements of Resolution No. 050954 are not satisfied. xxx “19. Based on the circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that there was no clear intention on the part of respondent to commit a wrong or to deliberately and flagrantly violate the law. True, he received the directive to refund dated February 26, 2009 but he replied to this directive and asked for an extension. Though he might have been remised in replying to the reiterated directive to refund dated September 13, 2010, bul, in all honesty, he in good faith believed that there was no issue anymore because he was given clearance by the Municipal Government of Nabua and was not required to obtain additional clearance from the CSCRO. When he submitied his papers for voluntary retirement with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), he was not required 10 submit CSC Clearance. When he retired effective January 1, 2015 (sic), there was no pending case against him. At the time of his retirement, he was not advised that a show-cause order was already issued against him. By the time that the clarificatory conference was scheduled, he was already retired from the service.” The essential facts of this case are, as follows: Atty. Femando D. Simbulan, then Municipal Mayor, Municipal Government of Nabua, Camarines Sur, submitted to CSC RO V an Authorized Form dated October 6, 1997 with Application for Competitive Examination for Local Scholarship Program (LSP) of Genaro N. Fajardo, Jr., to pursue his master’s degree studies pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 967227 dated November 12, 1996 circularized in CSC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 26, 1996!, * Revised nes and Operating Procedures on the Local Scholarship Program (LSP) C& Fejardo, 6. Page ¢ of 11 Before CSC awarded to Fajardo the scholarship grant, he was made to sign on June 11, 1998 the Scholarship Contract under the LSP, specifying the conditions of the scholarship grant and his obligations, to wit: xxx “I, GRANTEE - That I shall: “LL Complete all requirements within one year; xxx “1.5 Upon completion of my scholarship grant, return to my agency immediately and resume my functions and responsibilities; xxx “17. Submit my grades or a copy of academic records to the Commission through its Civil Service Regional Office copy furnished my agency at the end of every semester; “18. Refund 10 the Civil Service Commission the full amount as may have been defrayed by the Commission for my scholarship grant and to repay my office/agency for my salary and other expenses incurred incidental 10 the grant for failure 10 comply with any of the foregoing conditions through my fault or willful neglect, resignation, voluntary retirement or other causes within ‘my control. “IL. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION - The Commission shall: “2.1 Shoulder the tuition and other school fees of the grantee which shall not exceed P 22,500.00; and “2.2 Provide the scholar with a book allowance of P3,000.00 and thesivresearch writing financial assistance of 1,000.00, and “2.3. Monitor the scholar completion of the grant to determine his/her progress or academic performance. “II AGENCY- That agency head shall: C& Féjardo, 6. Page Sof II “3.1 Authorize the grantee to study on official time for one year;” Ina Letter dated May 10, 1999, Fajardo, among others, requested to the CSC RO V for an extension of their LSP grant for another semester to cover their remaining academic units, thesis or research studies. It was granted in a Letter dated May 20, 1999 and the scholars were required to submit a certification of their final grades and two (2) copies of their thesis after the lapse of said extension. Ina Letter dated March 3, 2005?, Fajardo was reminded by the CSC RO V to submit his Transcript of Records (TOR), Diploma (duly authenticated by the School Registrar) and ‘two (2) copies of his thesis, as proof of completion of his studies in Master in Business Administration (MBA) not later than March 31, 2005. However, Fajardo failed to comply with said directive, Ina Letter dated February 10, 2009, CSC RO V reiterated its directive to Fajardo to submit his TOR, Diploma and two (2) copies of his thesis within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. Otherwise, he shall refund to the Commission the total expenses amounting to Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P25,500.00) and the amount of salaries, allowances and other benefits accorded to him while on scholarship or face the corresponding administrative charges. In response‘, Fajardo requested for another extension to finish his master’s degree. However, in a Letter dated February 26, 2009, CSC RO V directed Fajardo to refund to the ‘Commission his total expenses, to wit: xxx “Please be reminded that you were granted the scholarship in school year 1998-1999. In the first semester of school year 1999-2000 this Office already granted you an extension to finish your studies. Inasmuch as the period you are supposed to finish the course being 1999 is already nine (9) years past, which in effect you have already been given additional time to finish, this Office now requires you to refund to the Commission the total expenses incurred for your studies in the amount of Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P25,500.00) Pesos and to your agency the salaries, allowances and benefits received while on official study grant in view of your letter dated 24 February 2009 informing us that you have not finished the course." Fajardo failed to submit proof that he finished his master’s degree and failed to refund to the Commission the amount of P25,500.00 granted to him under the LSP. 2 Nailed on March 15, 200S on Fajardo’s ast known residential address ® Mailed on February 17,2009 to Fajrdo’s last known residential address “Letter dated February 24,2009Fajardo, 6. Page 6 of 11 Ina Letter dated September 13, 2010°, Fajardo was required to immediately refund the amount of P25,500.00 to the Commission. However, the CSC RO did not receive any feedback from him. The CSC RO V issued an Order dated October 18, 20125, directing Fajardo to submit his comment/explanation under oath within three (3) days from receipt thereof, why no administrative disciplinary action for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service should be taken against him, Fajardo failed to comply. Sometime in 2013, Fajardo filed an Optional Retirement effective January 1, 2014 without informing CSC RO V of such intention, In an Order dated April 14, 20157 issued by the CSC RO V, Fajardo was directed to appear for Clarificatory Conference on July 15, 2015 at the Legal Services Division (LSD), CSC ROV. For Fajardo’s failure to appear, another Order dated July 20, 2015* was issued by CSC RO V resetting the Clarificatory Conference to November 12, 2015 at the Hearing Room, LSD. In an Order dated November 17, 2015°, Fajardo was informed that his case is submitted for resolution based on the available records on file due to his failure to attend the Clarificatory Conference. despite due notice, In Resolution No. 1500386 dated December 23, 2015", the CSC RO V found a prima facie!! case against Fajardo for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. He was given three (3) days from receipt thereof within which to submit his ‘Answer under oath and was notified that he may opt to be assisted by a counsel of his choice. He was further advised to indicate in his Answer whether or not he opts for a formal investigation. Ina Letter dated December 29, 2015, Mayor Delia C. Simbulan, Municipal Government of Nabua was informed that the CSC RO V issued a Notice of Charges against Fajardo for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. led on September 24,2010 to Fajardo's lst known residential address andthe retumed card does not show that it was not received ‘ Mailed through registered mail on October 24, 2012 to Fajando’s last known residential address. " Sent through Registered mail on Apri 23,2015 to Fajardo's lst known residential adress * Sent through Registered melon July 23,2015 to Fajardo’s lst known residential adress. ® Sent through Registered mail on November 20, 2015 to Fajardo’ last known residential adres, "Sent through Registered mal tothe Office of the Municipal Accountant, Municipal Government of Nabua, " Formal Charge® Fajardo, G. Page 7 of 1 In Decision No. 160116 dated May 20, 2016 issued by CSC RO V, Fajardo was found guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and meted upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service and its accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits except terminal leave credits and personal contributions to the GSIS, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking civil service examinations. On November 24, 2016, the CSC RO V received the Motion for Reconsideration dated November 18, 2016 filed by Fajardo through counsel. However, it was denied in Resolution No. 1600382 dated December 15, 2016. Hence, this Petition for Review filed by Fajardo with the Commiss mn, Upon receipt of the said Petition, the Office for Legal Affairs (OLA), this Commission, issued an Order dated February 14, 2017, requesting CSC RO V to forward the complete records of the case. The CSC RO V complied with said directive and forwarded the records of Fajardo for the Commission’s evaluation and resolution, The issue to be resolved is whether the CSC RO V erred in finding Fajardo guilty of the administrative offenses of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties. ‘The Commission finds in the negative. Under the Guidelines for the Effective Implementation of the LSP-MDC Policy on Refund", the following scholars shall refund the expenses incurred by CSC in view of their scholarship, viz: xxx “L Coverage of the Refund “1) Scholars who, at the effectivity of this Resolution failed to complete their studies within the one-year per' ‘approved extensions, if any; and 2.) Scholars who fail to complete the service obligation on account of voluntary resignation, opti. nt, ym the service through his or her own fault, or other causes within the scholar's control. C ® CSC MC No. 14, 2005DF Fajardo, G. Page 8 of 11 xxx “I. Mechanics for Refund xxx Administrative charges for Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service ‘may be filed by the CSC RO against the LSP scholar who failed to refund in three years based on factual circumstances that led to the failure of the scholar to refund and afier due process. xxx “Scholars who failed to finish their course or scholars who obtained their master's degree but failed to complete the required service obligation shall also refund to their agency the salaries, allowances and benefits they received while on scholarship. The refund of salaries (net of mandatory obligations, e.g. withholding tax, GSIS, Pag ibig, Philhealth contributions), allowances and benefits received by the scholars from their agency shall be settled between the agency head and the scholar. xxx “IN. Refund by certain scholars “G. Records show that Fajardo had been reminded several times of his obligation under the LSP grant. However, despite notices, he neither submitted proof that he finished his studies nor xxx Scholars who were not able to complete their course and who are scheduled to retire shall pay the full amount of the refund to the Commission and/or the agency on or before the effectivity of the_retirement, x x x." (Underscoring supplied) reimbursed the expenses incurred for his scholarship. ‘Thus, as regards the administrat C charge of Grave Misconduct, the CSC RO V correctly found Fajardo guilty thereof. Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. To& Fajardo, 6 Page 9 of 11 constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the Performance of the officials functions and duties of a public officer. 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. Corruption, as an element of Grave Misconduct consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person unlawfully and ‘wrongfillly uses his/her station or character to procure some benefit for himself/herself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others (CSC vs. Belagan, 440 SCRA 578). This is apparently present in Fajardo’s case as he flagrantly disregarded established rule under the LSP Contract. His act clearly constitutes Grave Misconduct. On the other hand, CSC RO V likewise committed no error in finding Fajardo guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Sevice. Conduct is prejudicial to the public service if it violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes — or tends to diminish — the people’s faith in the government"’. Clearly, Fajardo is under obligation to refund the ‘expenses incurred for his scholarship. He was remiss on this obligation and his unwarranted act resulted to undue prejudice to the best interest of the service where the government was denied of a committed service. Moreover, Fajardo, in applying for, granted to and failing to finish his scholarship grant, deprived other government employees of the opportunity to avail of the LSP. Fajardo’s contention that he acted in good faith when he availed of optional retirement because the Municipal Government of Nabua issued his Certificate of Clearance, is untenable. Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction unconscientious. In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal, a person’s intention can be ascertained not from his own protestation of good faith, which is self-serving, but from evidence of his conduct and outward acts'*, First, Fajardo, disregarded several times the directives/orders issued by CSC RO V to submit his proofs that he finished his Master’s degree or refund the amount granted to him under the LSP. Second, he was fully aware of the consequences/eonditions of his scholarship in case of his failure to finish his master’s degree and failure to refund the expenses incurred. Third, he failed to notify the CSC RO V of his retirement despite his knowledge that he is under obligation to refuund. Lastly, despite notices/orders issued to him by the CSC RO V to comply with the conditions of his LSP, he neither informed CSC RO V of his travel abroad nor left his contact number. In this light, Fajardo’s actuations cannot be considered that he acted in good faith. ' Civil Service Commission v. Maala, G.R. No. 165283, August 18,2005, 467 SCRA 390,399 Consolacion v. Gambito, A.M. No, P-06-2186, July 3, 2012, 675 SCRA 452, 463 C& Fejardo, 6. Page 10 of 11 The contention of Fajardo that he was deprived of due process, is unwarranted. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one’s side’. The constitutional mandate is also deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of'®, This chance was shown in Fajardo’s Letter dated February 24, 2009 and his subsequent filing of Motion for Reconsideration. He was given an opportunity to explain his side, a chance to settle his obligation and seek reconsideration on the assailed decision. His argument that he did not receive the Orders issued by CSC RO V is not tenable. ‘The CSC RO V's findings pinning culpability for the charges of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service upon Fajardo were not, as shown above, fraught with procedural mischief. Its conclusions were founded on the evidence presented and evaluated as facts. Well-settled is the doctrine that findings of fact of administrative agencies ‘must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or preponderant!” Alll told, the Commission finds substantial evidence against Fajardo for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial for the Best Interest of the Service, Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), a finding of Grave Misconduct is punishable by dismissal from the service even for the first offense'®, Conduct Prejudicial for the Best Interest of the Ser also considered as a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense", In the event that the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges, the penalty to be imposed is that which corresponds to the most serious charge which is dismissal from the service in the herein case, and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstance”, Considering the optional retirement of Fajardo, the penalty of dismissal from the service is deemed served. It is clarified, however, that the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, bar from taking any Civil Service examinations, forfeiture of retirement benefits except terminal leave benefits and personal contributions to the GSIS, if any, are likewise imposed upon him. "= Civil Service Commission v. Maala, G.R. No. 165253, August 18, 2005, 467 SCRA 390, 399 "6 Concerned Officials of MWSS v. Vasquez, 310 Phil. 54, cing Mutue v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 43 (1990). " Pizza HuvProgresive Development Corporation v. NLRC, 322 Phil. $79. "8 Ynson v. Court of Appeals, 57 SCRA 411 (1996). ' Section 46 (A)(3), Rule 10 of RRACCS ® Section 46 (BX), same Rule C® Fajardo, G. Page 11 of 11 WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review of Genaro N. Fajardo, Jr. former Municipal Accountant, Municipal Government of Nabua, Camarines Sur, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, Decision No. 160116 dated May 20, 2016 of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSC RO) V, Legazpi City, finding him guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service with all the accessory penalties, namely, cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, bar from taking any Civil Service examinations, forfeiture of retirement benefits except terminal leave benefits and personal contributions to the GSIS, if any, are likewise imposed upon him, is AFFIRMED. A copy of this Decision shall be furnished the Commission on Audit-Municipal Government of Nabua, Camarines Sur, for its reference and appropriate action. Quezon City. ROBERT S. MARTINEZ ‘Commissioner Aiiatan ALICIA dela ROSA-BALA. Chairperson VACANT. Commissioner ted by: DOLORE B. BONIFACTO Director IV ‘Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office (01484149) ems-0417)CSLO-TISHAang Fajardo, G.(Pettion for Revien_CME CPBIS)