ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE

An Overview of Civil Service Law and Rules 

DEFINITION:
A part of Administrative law which deals with administrative infractions or
grounds for disciplinary actions, administrative penalties and administrative
disciplinary procedure.
LEGAL BASES:
1.     Art. XI, 1987 Constitution (Public Accountability)
2.     Art. IX, 1987 Constitution (Civil Service)
3.     The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. 292)
4.     Local Government Code
5.     RA 6713
6.     The Ombudsman Act
7.     Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
8.     Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases
9.     Supreme Court Decisions
10.   CSC Resolutions
11.   Other Laws dealing with administrative discipline
Administrative Discipline had its genesis from the constitutional mandate
which states as follows:
"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." (Art. XI, Accountability of Public Officers)

The phrase "public office is a public trust" refers to a representative

government, the officers being mere agents and not rulers of the people, one
where no one man or set of men has a proprietary or contractual right to an
office, but where every officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of law
and holds the office as a trust for the people.
Characteristics of Administrative Discipline:
Administrative offenses do not prescribe. (Floria vs. Sunga, 368
SCRA 551)
Administrative cases are not subject to settlement.
The withdrawal of the complainant is not a ground for the dismissal.
The complainant is a mere witness to the commission of the offense,
hence, anybody can file an administrative complaint.
No officer or employee of the government can be disciplined or removed from
office except for cause and after due process. (Art. IX-B, Sec. 2, par. 3, 1987
Constitution)
—     The phrase "for cause" refers to grounds for disciplinary actions
enumerated in the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292).
—     The procedure in administrative cases is governed by CSC
Resolution No. 99-1936 (The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service) with the Rules of Court being applied in suppletory
character.
Investigation and adjudication of administrative complaints against appointive
local officials and employees as well as their suspension and removal shall be
in accordance with the Civil Service Law and Rules and other pertinent laws.
The results of such administrative investigations shall be reported to the Civil
Service Commission. (Sec. 84, Local Government Code)
Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. — The Office of the
Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive
officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and
agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-
owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials
who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress,
and the Judiciary. (Sec. 21, RA 6770, The Ombudsman Act)
Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be
sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee even if
no criminal prosecution is instituted against him. (Sec. 11, par. b, RA 6713,
The Code of Conduct)
JURISDICTION:
The authority to hear and decide cases and the power or jurisdiction to
institute disciplinary actions in administrative cases is lodged only on the
disciplinary authority to which such power is vested by law. Absent such legal
basis the power to discipline cannot be exercised.
Heads of agencies have jurisdiction to investigate and discipline their own
officials and employees. However, heads of agencies may delegate the power
to investigate to their subordinates and just wait the recommendations which
will be made afterwards. (Sec. 47, par. 2 and 3, EO 292).
The authority that decides the case, therefore, is also clothed with the power
to investigate and is deemed to have done the same even if in reality
somebody else conducted it by virtue of delegation.
Jurisprudence on Jurisdiction:
"Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the
allegations in the complaint". (Deltaventures Resources, Inc. vs. Cabato, 327 SCRA 482)
Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by mere administrative policy of any court or tribunal.
(Arranza vs. BF Homes, Inc.,  333 SCRA 799)
 

"The Court loses jurisdiction upon the finality of the decision, except to order the execution
within its lifetime". (Lizardo, Sr. vs. Montano, 332 SCRA 163).
"Jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent or waiver while the venue of an action may be
changed by consent of the parties". (Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. vs. Registry of Deeds of
Parañaque City, 344 SCRA 680)

Kinds of Jurisdiction
1.     Original jurisdiction — Jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases
which exist for the first time (i.e., complaint, petition, protest, request
for favorable recommendation for executive clemency) under it are of
two sub-classifications:
a.     Exclusive original jurisdiction — Original jurisdiction
which cannot be exercised by another body. Example is the
jurisdiction of the CSC over examination-related cases, cases of
sexual harassment filed against its officials and employees,
requests for a favorable recommendation for executive
clemency, requests for extension of service, requests to transfer
venue of hearing being conducted by any of the CSC offices and
other cases which other bodies cannot legally act upon.
b.     Concurrent original jurisdiction — Original jurisdiction
which two or more bodies may exercise. This, however, cannot
be exercised simultaneously as the same gives rise to the
prohibited practice of forum shopping. This is subject to the rule
that the assumption of one body over a case excludes other
bodies that may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the same.
Under RA 4670, the disciplinary jurisdiction over public school teachers
rests exclusively on DepEd. (Armand Fabella, et al. vs. CA, 282 SCRA 256)
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction — When two bodies have concurrent
jurisdiction, one of which is deemed to have an expertise over the subject
matter of the case, the other body gives way to the expert to exercise the
primary jurisdiction.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — Before going to court, all
remedies within the level of administrative bodies must first be had, otherwise
the action is dismissible for being premature, subject to certain exceptions.
Res Judicata — When a case has already been disposed of, the same
cannot be reopened anymore or re-filed. It arises when the same case being
filed deals with the same cause of action. The revival of the case under this
doctrine is deemed barred by final judgement. (Santos vs. CA, 226 SCRA
630, Ysmael vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, 190 SCRA 673)
Double jeopardy applies only in criminal cases, hence, cannot be invoked in
administrative cases. (PNB vs. Ricardo Garcia)
Forum Shopping — The practice of shopping for a favorable forum to insure
a favorable action. This is considered a malpractice and can be used as a
ground for disciplinary action. It may also cause the outright dismissal of the
case filed. Present rules now require a certification of non-forum shopping in
all initiatory pleadings before the same can be acted upon.
Permanency of Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction once present is not lost upon the
instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. (Que vs.
Court of Appeals, 339 SCRA 505) In administrative cases, jurisdiction over the
person complained of remains even if he resigned from the service so long as
the offense was committed during his incumbency. (CSC Resolution No. 99-
0298 dated January 1, 1999, Uy, Allan)
Resignation is not a way out to evade administrative liability when facing
administrative sanction. The resignation of a public servant does not preclude
the finding of any administrative liability to which he or she shall still be
answerable. [21]
Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, in considering an appointive
official ipso facto resigned, merely provides for the immediate implementation
of the penalty for the prohibited act of engaging in partisan political activity.
This provision was not intended, and should not be used, as a defense
against an administrative case for acts committed during government service.
(Esther S. Pagano vs. Juan Nazarro, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 149072, September
21, 2007)
1.     Appellate Jurisdiction — Refers to the jurisdiction to take
cognizance of appeals from a decision of a lower deciding authority.
a.     Exclusive appellate jurisdiction — all decisions of agency heads
on administrative cases whether disciplinary or non-disciplinary are
within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CSC.
The Party Adversely Affected Doctrine — Refers to the rule that in
administrative cases only the respondent who was found guilty of an offense
has the personality to file an appeal. (Paredes vs. CSC) However, this is a
procedural rule which must be invoked by the appellee; otherwise, the appeal
by the complainant may be given due course. (Mendez vs. CSC)
The CSC is considered a party adversely affected by the decision of a higher
court reversing its decision on the issue of nepotism, since the CSC is the
guardian of merit and fitness in the bureaucracy. (Dacoycoy vs. CSC)
In the case of PNB vs. Ricardo V. Garcia, Jr. September 9, 2002, the
Supreme Court expressly abandoned the party-adversely-affected doctrine
holding that the effort of the government to curb graft and corruption,
malfeasance and misfeasance in the government will be rendered
meaningless if appeal cannot be had from erroneous administrative decisions.

 The complainant in an administrative case is absolutely without personality

to appeal, except if he/she is the agency head, the Civil Service
Commission or the same is not put in issue. (NAB vs. Mamauag, 466
SCRA 624, 2005)
 Note: Pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, Decisions of the Civil
Service Commission are appealable to the Court of Appeals through
a Petition for Review.
Salient Features of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service

 Decentralization of authority to decide administrative cases: Thus,

CSCROs are now empowered to take cognizance of administrative cases
arising within their jurisdiction and dispose of the same up to logical
conclusion, subject only to appeal which may be taken to the CSC proper.
For this purpose, the jurisdiction of the CSC proper and CSCROs were
delineated as follows:

CSC Proper
A.        Disciplinary
1.     Decisions of CSCROs brought before it on petition for review;
2.     Decisions of heads of departments, agencies, provinces, cities,
municipalities and other instrumentalities;
3.     Complaints brought against Civil Service Commission Proper
personnel;
4.     Complaints against third level officials who are not presidential
appointees;
5.     Complaints against civil service officials and employees which
are not acted upon by the agencies and such other complaints
requiring immediate action, in the interest of justice;
6.     Requests for transfer of venue of hearing on cases being heard
by CSCROs;
7.     Appeals from the Order of Preventive Suspension; and
8.     Such other actions or requests involving issues arising out of or
in connection with the foregoing enumeration.
A.        Non-Disciplinary (CSC Proper)
1.     Decisions of CSCROs brought before it;
2.     Request for favorable recommendation on petition for executive
clemency;
3.     Protests against the appointment or other personnel actions,
involving third level officials; and
4.     Such other analogous actions or petitions arising out of or in
relation with the foregoing enumerations.
B.        Disciplinary (CSCROs)
 1.     Complaints initiated by or brought before the CSCROs provided
that the alleged acts or omissions were committed within the
jurisdiction of the Regional Office, including examination anomalies or
irregularities and the persons complained of are employees of
agencies, local or national, within said geographical areas;
2.     Complaints involving CSCRO personnel who are appointees of
said office;
3.     Petitions to place respondent under preventive suspension.
C.        Non-Disciplinary (CSCROs)
1.     Disapproval of appointments brought before it on appeal;
2.     Protests against the appointments of first and second level
employees brought before it directly or on appeal;
3.     Decisions of national agencies and local government units within
their geographical boundaries relative to personnel actions and non-
disciplinary cases brought before it on appeal; and
4.     Requests for accreditation of services and correction of personal
information in the records of the Commission.
Jurisdiction of Heads of Agencies
Heads of departments, agencies, cities, municipalities and other
instrumentalities shall have original concurrent jurisdiction with the
Commission over their respective officers and employees.
A.        Disciplinary
1.     Complaints involving their respective personnel. Their decisions
shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more
than thirty (30) days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30)
days salary.
Decisions of Heads of agencies imposing a penalty of removal shall be
 
executory only after confirmation by the Department Secretary concerned;
COMPLAINT — The means to bring to the attention of the proper disciplining
authority the commission of infraction by the one complained of.
Requisites of a valid complaint

 It must be in writing;

 Subscribed and sworn to by the complainant;

 Must contain the name and address of the complainant;

 Must contain the full name and address of the person complained of as well
as his position and office of employment;
 Must contain a narration of how, when and where the
offense was committed and other facts relevant thereto;

 Must contain certified true copies of documentary evidence and affidavits of

witnesses, if any; and

 Must contain a certification of non-forum shopping.

Notes:

 A complaint initiated by the disciplining authority need not be under oath;

 An anonymous complaint shall not be given due course unless supported

by obvious truth or such documentary or other direct evidence showing the
probability that the offense was indeed committed by the person
complained of, in which case, the latter may be asked to file counter-
affidavit;

 The withdrawal of the complaint does not necessarily result in the dismissal
of the case;

 The technical requirements for a valid complaint should be complied with

otherwise the complaint will not be acted upon. Instead, notice to the
complainant shall be sent requiring such compliance. In case of further
failure to comply despite notice, the complaint shall be dismissed.

 In case the complaint is sufficient in form and substance, the person

complained of shall be required to submit a counter-affidavit. If a prima
facie case exists, Formal Charge shall be issued, otherwise the complaint
shall be dismissed. Failure to submit a counter-affidavit is deemed a waiver
thereof. (Preliminary Investigation)

 Preliminary Investigation already includes the fact-finding investigation

which is an ex-parte examination of records.

 After a Formal Charge is issued, the respondent will be asked to file an

answer. In case of failure, he is deemed to have waived the same and
formal investigation shall already commence.

Preventive Suspension — A precautionary measure to insure that the

respondent will not suppress evidence or harass the witnesses against him
which is done by placing him under suspension for a certain period (60 days in
LGU, 90 days in NGAs and 6 months if the suspension is imposed by the
Office of the Ombudsman).
Requisites of a valid preventive suspension:
 Formal Charge was already issued.

 Respondent is either charged with dishonesty, oppression, grave

misconduct, neglect in the performance of duty or if there are reasons to
believe the respondent is guilty of charge/s which would warrant his
removal from the service.

 In lieu of preventive suspension, the proper disciplining authority or head of

office may reassign respondent to another unit of the agency during the
formal hearings.

 Preventive suspension shall be deferred or interrupted during the

respondent's maternity or paternity leave.

 The period of delay owing to the fault of the respondent shall not be
included in counting the period of preventive suspension.

 Although interlocutory in character, an order of preventive suspension may

be appealed to the CSC if it is found to be unwarranted, not in accordance
with law or without basis.

 Back wages shall be paid in case a preventive suspension is declared

illegal or null and void under the following circumstances:

1.     The Order was issued by one who is not authorized by law;
2.     The order was not premised on any of the grounds or causes
warranted by law;
3.     The order of preventive suspension was issued without a formal
charge; or
4.     The duration has exceeded the prescribed period, in which case the
payment of back salaries shall correspond to the excess period only.
            A declaration of invalidity of a preventive suspension not based on
any of the reasons aforestated, shall similarly result in the reinstatement
of the employee concerned but back wages shall not be paid unless the
respondent is subsequently exonerated of the charges against him (CSC
Resolution No. 030502 dated May 5, 2003).
•     Back wages shall not be paid for a valid preventive suspension
even if the respondent is exonerated since in that case the
suspension is legal (Gloria vs. CSC).
•     Preventive suspension is not valid if the employee is not in the
position to harass witnesses or suppress evidence. (Gellegani, Ma.
Cynthia P.A., CSC Res. No. 021021)
Remedies
Motion for Reconsideration — An initial remedy to seek a reversal of an
unfavorable decision and should be filed within 15 days from receipt of the
decision.

A.        It should be based on the following grounds:

a.     New evidence has been discovered which materially affects the
decision rendered,
b.     The decision is not supported by the evidence on record, or
c.     Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to
the interest of the movant.
Note:
Only one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed.
It stays the running of the reglementary period to appeal.
B.        Appeal — An action before higher authority seeking a review and
reversal of the decision rendered by the body which first decided the
case.

 Can be resorted to only in case the penalty imposed is more than 30 days
suspension or fine equivalent to more than 30 days salary.

 Appeal does not stay the execution of the decision appealed from except if
the penalty is removal where confirmation by the Secretary is needed
before the same may be executed. And except further if the decision
appealed from was rendered by a CSCRO in which case, the appeal taken
to the CSC proper stays the execution of the decision appealed from.

 An appeal from the decision of the head of an agency that is attached to a

department imposing more than 30 days penalty is likewise appealable
directly to the Commission Proper without the need for confirmation by the
secretary concerned. Pending appeal, the appealed decision is executory.
(CSC Resolution No. 070244 dated Feb. 7, 2007)

 An appeal is taken by filing with the appellate authority a notice of appeal

including the appeal memorandum, copy furnished the office that rendered
the decision. The latter in turn, upon receipt of the copy of appeal, shall
submit the records of the case to the CSC with comment on the appeal.

 Appeal fee in the amount of P500.00 shall be paid.

 A certificate of non-forum shopping shall also be submitted.

 If any of the technical requirements for filing an appeal is lacking, the

appellant shall be informed about it and shall be required to comply within
 10 days from receipt of notice. If thereafter, still no compliance is made, the
appeal shall be dismissed due to appellant's intent to delay.

 If on appeal the respondent is found to have been deprived of due process,

the case shall be remanded to the agency head for another investigation,
with due process. The investigation shall be finished in three calendar
months otherwise the respondent shall be considered exonerated.

 The remanding of the case due to lack of due process shall not entail
reinstatement or payment of back wages.

 A decision of a CSCRO dismissing a complaint for lack of  prima facie case

may be the subject of a petition for review with the CSC proper.

 The decision of the Civil Service Commission may be appealed to the Court
of Appeals through a petition for review and pending said appeal, the
decision is executory unless the CA issues a Restraining Order.

Petition for Executive Clemency

 A petition for executive clemency may be filed by a dismissed employee for

the purpose of commuting or removing his administrative penalties or
disabilities.

 The petition shall be filed with the CSC which in turn may either deny it or
consider it favorably by recommending such grant to the Office of the
President.

 Although unwritten, the CSC adopts a policy that petitions for executive
clemency may be filed only after five years from the date of the petitioner's
dismissal from the service.

 The petition must be accompanied by: certified true copy of the decision
with a favorable recommendation by the disciplining authority, certification
from reputable members of the community where he resides to the effect
that he has become a useful member thereof.

 Proof of non-pendency of an appeal/petition for review relative to the

disciplinary case before any court/tribunal and proof of payment of
P500.00.

OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave,
less grave or light, depending on their gravity and effects on the government
service.
Grave offenses are those which may be punished with dismissal from the
service for the first offense or the maximum of 1-year suspension for the first
offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense. Examples of
Grave Offenses punishable with dismissal are:

 Dishonesty

 Gross Neglect of Duty

 Grave Misconduct

 Being Notoriously Undesirable

 Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

 Falsification of Official Document

 Physical or mental incapacity due to immoral or vicious habits

 Engaging directly in partisan political activities

 Receiving for personal use, a fee, gift or other valuable thing in the course
of official duties when the same is given by any person in the hope or
expectation of receiving a favor

 Contracting loans of money or property from persons with whom the office
of the employee has business relations

 Nepotism and Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.

Examples of Grave Offenses punishable with 6 mos. and 1 day to 1 year are:

 Oppression

 Disgraceful and immoral conduct

 Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties

 Frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness

 Refusal to perform official duty

 Gross insubordination

 Conduct prejudicial to the best of interest of the service

 Having financial and material interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of his office; owning, controlling, etc. as officer in any private
enterprise regulated or supervised or licensed by his Office

 Disclosing or misusing confidential of classified information to further his

private interests, among others.

Less Grave offenses are those punishable with 1 mo. and 1 day to 6 mos.
For the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Examples are:

 Simple Neglect of Duty

 Simple Misconduct

 Gross Discourtesy in the course of official duties

 Violation of CS Law and Rules of serious nature

 Insubordination

 Habitual Drunkenness

 Failure to File sworn statements of assets and liabilities

 Failure to resign from his position in the private business where there is
conflict of interest within 30 days from assumption of public office.

Light Offenses are those punishable with reprimand for the first offense,
suspension of up 30 days for the second offense and dismissal from the
service for the third offense. Examples are:

 Discourtesy

 Improper solicitation from subordinates or school children

 Violation of reasonable office rules and regulations

 Habitual tardiness

 Gambling prohibited by law

 Refusal to render overtime service

 Immorality prior to entering the service

 Borrowing money from subordinates

 Lending money at usurious rates

 Willful failure to pay just debts

 Lobbying for personal gain in legislative halls and offices without authority

 Promoting sale of tickets in behalf of a private enterprise without authority

 Failure to act promptly on letters within 16 days

 Failure to process documents within a reasonable time

Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating or Alternative Circumstances
In determining the imposable penalties, some circumstances may be
appreciated for the purpose of mitigating or aggravating the liability of the
respondent. They are as follows:

 Physical illness

 Good faith

 Taking undue advantage of official position

 Taking undue advantage of subordinates

 Undue disclosure of confidential information

 Use of government property in the commission of the offense

 Habitual commission of the offense during office hours and within office
premises

 Employment of fraudulent means to commit or conceal the offense

 Length of service in the government,

 Education or other analogous circumstances.

 If there is no aggravating or mitigating circumstance present, the medium

penalty is imposed.

 It only the aggravating circumstance is present, the maximum penalty shall

be imposed.

 If only mitigating circumstance is present, the minimum penalty shall be

imposed.
 The penalty of dismissal from the service is indivisible, hence, no amount of
mitigating circumstance can reduce the same to a lower penalty.

 When aggravating and mitigating circumstances are present, the penalty

shall be imposed according to the number of each circumstances. If there
are more aggravating circumstances, the maximum shall be imposed; if
there are more mitigating, the maximum shall be imposed; and if both
equally offset each other, the medium penalty shall be imposed.

Duration and effect of administrative penalties:

 The penalty of dismissal shall result in the permanent separation of the

employee from the service with perpetual disqualification to hold public
office.

 Suspension shall be considered a gap in the service and during that period
the respondent will not be entitled to all money benefits including leave
credits. He shall not also be promoted during the said period.

 The penalty of fine shall be in an amount not exceeding 6 months salary of

the respondent. The prohibition for promotion shall be equivalent to the
period had the penalty been suspension. The fine shall be paid to the
agency that imposed the same.

 The penalty of reprimand does not carry any accessory penalty.

Effect of exoneration:

 If a civil service employee was illegally suspended or dismissed, legally

speaking, his position did not become vacant, so the appointment of
another to the post during the suspension period is temporary and
precarious and no obstacle to reinstatement of the person who was illegally
suspended or dismissed (Batungbakal vs. National Dev. Co. 93 Phil. 182)

 If total exoneration is declared, the illegally dismissed or suspended

employee is entitled to reinstatement with payment of backwages and other
benefits but only for the period not exceeding five (5) years. (San Luis vs.
Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 258)

CONTEMPT

 Any official/employee/person found guilty after due proceedings of the

following acts or omissions may be punished for indirect contempt:
disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, decision,
resolution, ruling, summons, subpoena, command or injunction of the
Commission.
 Proceedings may be initiated by the Commission motu proprio, or
commenced by a verified petition.

 A hearing to investigate the charge shall be set. Failure of respondent to

attend the scheduled hearing and to give a satisfactory explanation in
writing will result in his waiver to be present during the hearing.

 Fine of P1,000.00 per day for every act of a person found guilty of indirect
contempt. Damages in addition to fine shall be awarded if contempt
consists of violation of an injunction or omission to do an act which is within
the power of the respondent.

DISGRACEFUL AND IMMORAL CONDUCT

Refers to acts which violate the basic norm of decency, morality and decorum
abhorred and condemned by the society. It refers to conduct which is willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
the good and respectable members of the community.
CLASSIFICATION
a)     Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct in the Workplace —
Conduct committed by parties, regardless of marital status, under
ANY of the following circumstances:
1.     The disgraceful and immoral conduct was committed in the
workplace in a scandalous manner
2.     The disgraceful and immoral conduct was committed by
taking advantage of one's position and/or with the use of
government property and resources
3.     The disgraceful and immoral conduct affected the work
performance of the respondents
b)     Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct Committed through a
Forbidden Relationship —
The disgraceful and immoral conduct is classified under this
section if the parties are engaged in a relationship forbidden by
law.
c)     Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct Committed through
Inherently Immoral Acts —
Conduct which consists of immoral and deviant acts inherently
forbidden by the basic norms of decency, morality and decorum
such as, but not limited to incest, pedophilia, exhibitionism and
the like, whether committed in a discreet or scandalous manner
within or out of the workplace.
WHO MAY INITIATE COMPLAINT
 a)      Disgraceful and                            •        DISCIPLINING
         Immoral Conduct in the                         AUTHORITY
         Workplace                                     •        ANY PERSON
b)      Disgraceful and                            •        (filed against the married
         Immoral Conduct                                    party) BY ANY
         Through a Forbidden                             IMMEDIATE MEMBER OF
         Relationship                                            HIS/HER FAMILY
c)      Disgraceful and                            •        DISCIPLINING
         Immoral Conduct                                   AUTHORITY
         Committed through                      •        ANY PERSON
         Inherently Immoral Acts
Memorandum Circular No. 15, s. 2010 dated August 5, 2010
"Section 1.     Definition of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct. — Disgraceful and Immoral
Conduct refers to an act which violates the basic norm of decency, morality and decorum
abhorred and condemned by the society. It refers to conduct which is willful, flagrant or
shameless and which shows a moral indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable
members of the community.
"Section 2.     Complaint for Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct; Who May Initiate/File: — A
complaint for Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct may be initiated by the disciplining authority or
filed by any person against the parties involved, whether married or unmarried.
"Section 3.     Complaint for Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct Against Unmarried Government
Personnel. — Unmarried government employees who do not have any existing legal
impediments to contract marriage may not be made liable for the administrative offense of
Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct unless 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, pedophilia, exhibitionism and the like.
"Section 4.     Manner of Commission of the Offense — The acts consisting of the administrative
offense of Disgraceful and Immoral conduct may be committed in a scandalous or discreet
manner, within or out of the workplace.

DISHONESTY
Has been defined as a form of conduct which connotes untrustworthiness and
lack of integrity, a disposition to lie, cheat deceive, betray."
[BALAGSO, Teodoro Jr. L., et al., CSC Resolution No. 99-1085, May 21, 1999
citing BRIONES, Rolando A., CAS Res. 97-3740 dated August 28, 1997]
"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."

[Section 1.      RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY;

CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006]
Classification of DISHONESTY
a)     Serious Dishonesty — Punishable by dismissal from the service
b)     Less Serious Dishonesty
1st offense — suspension from 6 months and 1 day to 1
year
2nd offense — dismissal from the service
[Section 2, RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY,
CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006]
c)     Simple Dishonesty —
1st offense — suspension of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
2nd offense — suspension of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year
3rd offense — dismissal from the service
[Section 2, RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY,
CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006]
The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the
commission of the dishonest act would constitute the offense of SERIOUS
DISHONESTY:
a)     The dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to
the Government
b)     The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the
dishonest act
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
d)     The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the
respondent
e)     The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official
documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her
employment
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
[Section 3, RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY,
CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006]
The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the
commission of the dishonest act would constitute the offense of 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
[Section 4, RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY,
CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4. 2006]
The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the
commission of the dishonest act would constitute the offense of 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)     That the dishonest act did not result in any gain or benefit to the
offender
e)     Other analogous circumstances
[Section 5, RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY,
CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006]
GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY
Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or
comparative, not an absolute term, and its application depends upon the
situation of the parties, and the degree of care and vigilance which the
circumstances reasonably impose
[US vs. JUANILLO, 23 Phil. 212]
GRAVE VS. SIMPLE
In Grave Misconduct, as distinguished from Simple Misconduct, the elements
of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established
rules, must be manifest."
[LANDRITO vs. CSC, 223 SCRA 564 Citing In Re: Impeachment of Horilleno,
43 Phil. 212 (1922)]
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 office and not his liability for the individual acts."
[LAGUILLES, Cesar P., CSC Resolution No. 99-0026, January 6, 1999]
CONVICTION OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE
Everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good
morals.
[In Re: Basa, 41 Phil 275; In Re: Isada, 60 Phil. 915]
MORAL TURPITUDE
Everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good
morals.
"It (moral turpitude) implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact that it is
punishable by law or not. It is not the prohibition by statute that fixes moral turpitude but the
nature of the act itself."

(ROBREDILLO, Mario, CSC Resolution No. 00-0657, March 10, 2000

citing DELA TORRE vs. COMELEC, 258 SCRA 483]
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
Falsification as a rule is the misrepresentation of a thing, fact or condition,
certifying that a thing is true when it is not, whether one has the right to make
the representation or certificate. As applied to a public document, in order that
said act be punishable, it is immaterial whether it has caused damage to a
third person or not. This is because falsification of public documents is
controlled by other principles distinct from those applicable to private
documents.
[U.S. vs. BUENAVENTURA, 1 Phil. 433]
ENGAGING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN PARTISAN POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES BY ONE HOLDING NON-POLITICAL OFFICE
The term "election campaign" or 'partisan political activity' refers to an act
designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or
candidates to a public office.
[BUGTONG, Diosdado, CSC Res. No. 97-0807, January 28, 1997 citing
Section 79 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa
Bilang 881)]
NEPOTISM
All appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or
in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned and
controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative {within the third degree} of
the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or
office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are
hereby prohibited.
[DEBULGADO vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 238 SCRA 184]
LIMITATIONS ON APPOINTMENTS
No person shall be appointed in the career service of the local government if
he is related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to the
appointing and recommending authority.
[Section 79, Local Government Code of 1991]
DISLOYALTY TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND TO THE
FILIPINO PEOPLE
It consists of abandonment or renunciation of one's loyalty to the government
or advocating the overthrow of the Government.
[Par. 7, Section 8, Presidential Decree No. 971, July 27, 1976]
OPPRESSION
The Commission has defined oppression as an act of cruelty, severity,
unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of authority.
[CSC Resolution: No. 95-2125, March 21 1995]
INEFFICIENCY AND INCOMPETENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
OFFICIAL DUTY
Incompetency — has been defined as the manifest lack of adequate ability
and fitness for the satisfactory performance of official duties. This has
reference to any physical, moral or intellectual quality the lack of which
substantially incapacitates one to perform the duties of an officer.
[Sec. 8, Pres. Decree No. 971]
FREQUENT UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES, OR TARDINESS IN
REPORTING FOR DUTY, LOAFING OR  FREQUENT UNAUTHORIZED
ABSENCES FROM DUTY DURING REGULAR OFFICE HOURS
An officer or employee shall be considered habitually absent if he incurs
unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit
under the Leave Law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least
three (3) consecutive months during the year.
[Section 22 (q), Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive
Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987)]
REFUSAL TO PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTY
"Any act conduct of officer or tribunal under a duty to perform, signifying intention not to
perform . . ."

[Word & Phrases, Volume 36-A, Copyright, 1962]

GROSS INSUBORDINATION
Is a deliberate and willful refusal to comply with a lawful request or order of a
higher authority. It involves disregard of proper authority and a refusal to obey
that authority, a willful disrespect of it."
[SOBREPEÑA, Carmelita G., CSC Resolution No. 001288. May 30, 2000
citing HARVEY, Tammang A., CSC Resolution No. 98-2225 August 21, 1998]
HABITUAL DRUNKENNESS
One who frequently and repeatedly becomes intoxicated by excessive
indulgence in intoxicating liquor so as to acquire a fixed habit and an
involuntary tendency to become intoxicated as often as the temptation is
presented, even though he remains sober for days or even weeks at a time.
[Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]
FREQUENT UNAUTHORIZED TARDINESS (HABITUAL TARDINESS)
An employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness,
regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two
(2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the
year.
[Section 22. (q) Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive
Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987)]
Memorandum Circular No. 16, s. 2010 dated August 6, 2010
1.     Any officer or employee who incurs undertime, regardless of the
number of minutes/hours, ten (10) times a month for at least two months
in a semester shall be liable for Simple Misconduct and/or Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, as the case may be; and
2.     Any officer or employee who incurs undertime, regardless of the
number of minutes/hours, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2)
consecutive months during the year shall be liable for Simple Misconduct
and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, as the case
may be.
Memorandum Circular No. 17, s. 2010 dated August 6, 2010
1.     Any officer or employee who is absent in the morning is considered
to be tardy and is subject to the provisions on habitual tardiness; and
2.     Any officer or employee who is absent in the afternoon is considered
to have incurred undertime subject to the provisions on undertime.
WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY JUST DEBTS
"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.
[Section 22. Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive
Order 292 (Administrative Code of 1987)]
Definition:
The term Sexual Harassment has varying definitions depending on what type
of case will be instituted. If the case is criminal in nature, the definition under
RA 7877 applies, thus, all elements thereof must be present for purposes of
conviction. On the other hand, the administrative offense of sexual
harassment is defined under the Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual
Harassment cases promulgated by the Civil service Commission (CSC
Resolution No. 01-0940) which conspicuously deviated from the stringent
requirements of RA 7877 insofar as the elements of the offense are
concerned.
Sexual Harassment as a criminal offense is defined as a work, education or
training related act committed by an employer, employee, manager,
supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach,
trainor or any person who, having authority, influence or moral
ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment,
demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other,
regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is
accepted by the object of said act.
Sexual Harassment as an administrative offense is defined as an act, or a
series of acts, involving any unwelcome sexual advance, request or demand
for a sexual favor, or other verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature,
committed by a government employee or official in a work related, training or
education related environment of the person complained of.
Note that the two definitions are substantially the same except that in the
administrative sexual harassment cases the element of moral ascendancy,
influence or authority on the part of the offender is not present.
Evolution of the rules on sexual harassment cases:
1.     CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1994 (CSC Res. No. 94-
2854)
Based on the broad mandate given by RA 6713 and EO 292 to the
CSC to adopt positive measures to promote the observance of the
standards of personal conduct of officials and employees in the civil
service and to adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency,
integrity, responsiveness and courtesy in the civil service.
Was issued before the enactment of RA 7877
It characterizes sexual harassment as either grave misconduct,
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service or simple
misconduct.
In its definition of sexual harassment the element of moral
ascendancy, influence or authority of the offender was not present.
2.     RA 7877 (1995)
Defines and penalizes the crime of sexual harassment in workplaces
and educational or training institutions in public and private sectors
and considers the presence of moral ascendancy, influence or
authority on the part of the perpetrator as an element of the crime.
Defines the obligations of employers, heads of offices or educational
institutions in addressing sexual harassment including the creation of
the Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI).
Makes the employer or the head of office liable under certain
conditions for failing to take immediate action after being informed by
the victims of sexual harassment.
Unclear on administrative sanctions.
3.     CSC Resolution No. 95-6161
Was issued pursuant to RA 7877 for the guidance of the CSC
personnel.
Adopts both the definitions of MC 19 and RA 7877 and likewise
considers authority, influence or moral ascendancy as elements of
the offense.
4.     Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment
Cases
Treated sexual harassment administrative cases as different in nature
from the criminal cases of sexual harassment.
Considered RA 7877 as dealing only with the criminal cases of sexual
harassment while adopting some of its features such as the creation
per agency of the CODI.
Declared that moral ascendancy is not an element of the
administrative offense.
Categorized different acts of administrative sexual harassment cases.
Other Related Laws:
1.     RA 6725 — An Act Strengthening the Prohibition on
Discrimination against Women
2.     RA 7192 — Women in Development and Nation Building
Act
3.     RA 8353 — The Anti Rape Law of 1997
4.     RA 8505 — Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of
1998
5.     The Child Abuse Law
6.     The Revised Penal Code which classifies the acts that may
constitute Sexual Harassment as follows:
a.     Unjust Vexation — Any human conduct which, although
not productive of some physical or material harm would,
however, unjustly annoy, vex, irritate, torment, distress or
disturb the mind of an innocent person to whom it is directed.
Violence and intimidation are not necessary.
 b.     Slander by Deed
c.     Acts of Lasciviousness
d.     Oral Defamation
e.     Coercion
Sexual Harassment: A threat in the workplace
Sexual harassment is recognized as a violation of human rights, morale and
efficiency in the workplace, it violates as well merit and fitness principle and
creates a hostile environment which adversely affect productive performance.
In 1999 Convention on Violence in the World of Work, ILO, Geneva, sexual
harassment had been categorically tagged as one of the threats in the
workplace. The Convention's declaration states as follows: 
"Sexual harassment violates a worker's right to job security and equal opportunity. It can create
working conditions that are hazardous to the psychological and physical well being of workers. It
also creates a poisoned work atmosphere that can disempower and demoralize workers. . ."
". . . When ignored, sexual harassment exacts a high cost to a company in terms of loss of
productivity, high absenteeism among affected employees, disruptions of work from long term
sick leaves, retraining of new personnel, low morale. . ."

True enough, sexual harassment cases in the Philippines often results in the
resignation of the victim, demoralization of employees and hostile working
environment to the prejudice of the service.
Evidence in Administrative Sexual Harassment cases:
Sexual harassment has no equivalent term in the Filipino language. We use
terms such as "tsansing, "abuso, "paglapastangan, "ginamit and binastos" to
refer to various forms or experiences of sexual abuse or molestation, including
acts falling within the concept of sexual harassment.
"Tsansing" or "chancing'' appears to be often used to refer to acts of sexual
harassment. It is also loaded with assumptions and perspectives about the
acts to which they refer. It is a derivative of the English word "chance" which
seems to say that the acts are accidental, not deliberate, or are made to
appear as such.
Another message conveyed seems to be that these acts are minor or trivial
thus almost compelling us to be dismissive about them. Not surprisingly, we
call as tsansing that seemingly accidental brushing of a man's arm against a
woman's breast.
Indeed, these acts may appear to be accidental or innocent or excusable to
the outsider, particularly when the form in which they come does not involve
our concept of "erotic" contact, thus allowing conflicting interpretations of the
significance of the act.
On the part of the person who experienced it, the characterization of the act
as tsansing may lead to ambivalence about what it was the she actually
experienced despite that, deep down, she felt some discomfort or knew there
was something wrong about the act.
The trivialization of sexual harassment is evident in people's common
responses to complaints of abuse. Responses like, "Wala yon, binigyan mo
lang ng malisya", "Maliit na bagay pinapalaki mo", "Makukuha lang yan sa
paligo", "Wala namang nawala sa yo", "Ipasadiyos mo na lang" are classic
expressions of our cultural values and our acceptance of these acts as daily,
normal occurrences.
The effect of these responses to victims is often discouraging, if not
devastating. It makes the victim doubt the validity of their experience and fear
non-belief if ever they report, as well as aggravates their feeling of shame
about the experience. It often leads to delay in reporting the abuse or silences
victims effectively.
The term "Sexual Favor" is viewed as excluding other sexual advances. It
seems that what are clearly "sexual" acts are those acts related to sexual
relating or sexual intimacy — kissing on the lips, fondling of breasts and
physical contact with the penis or vagina.
The characterization of the act as "sexual" or "non-sexual" often arises as an
issue when the acts involved are what many consider as ambivalent acts —
placing an arm around another's shoulders, a look or a stare (dirty or
malicious), comments about a person's looks or body (compliment or lewd) or
about sex, queries about a person's sex life, etc.
The problem is the concept of "sexual". What makes conduct "sexual
harassment" is not so much dependent on the part of the body touched or
whether there was physical contact. The key is the character of the conduct.
Conduct is "sexual harassment" when the sex and sexuality of the person and
everything culturally related to it is made the object of the conduct, as
something desired to be obtained or trivialized with, whether through physical,
verbal and other forms of conduct.
The "Filipina of decent repute" doctrine
This doctrine reasons out that no young and decent Filipina would publicly
admit that she was ravished and her honor tainted unless such was true, for it
would be instinctive for her to protect her honor and that considering the
inbred modesty and the consequent revulsion of a Filipina against airing in
public things that affect her honor, it is hard to conceive that complainant
would reveal and admit the ignominy she had undergone if it were not true.
(CSC Res. No. 000033)
The normal reaction standard
There is no standard behavior for persons confronted with a shocking incident
and that the workings of a human mind when placed under emotional stress
are unpredictable and cause different reactions. (People vs. Layagum, 261
SCRA 339) However, in deciding sexual harassment cases, the CSC used the
normal reaction standard. It found the complainant's behavior after the alleged
incident — that of signing her name on the attendance logbook and acting as
if nothing happened — as contrary to the normal reaction of a person who had
just been sexually harassed.
The Commission opined that a person who had been sexually assaulted
would not be concerned with anything else but securing her safely (CSC Res.
No. 983068).
Testimonial credibility
As the case usually involves two persons, the offender and the offended party,
the truth could be discerned from the manner by which the parties give their
testimonies during the hearing. In one case, the Commission considered
straightforward, spontaneous, detailed, convincing and natural testimony as
indicia of truthfulness (CSC Res. No. 990835).
Delay in reporting
Strictly speaking, there is no time period within which he or she is expected to
complain through proper channels. The time to do so may vary, depending
upon the needs, circumstances and more importantly, the emotional threshold
of the employee (Phil. Aeolus Automotive United Corp. vs. NLRC and
Rosalinda Cortez, GR No. 124617 (April 28, 2000).
The CSC itself did not consider as fatal complainant's delay in reporting, the
reasons for which were given (CSC Res. No. 973277). But in two cases, the
Commission considered reporting to the authorities at once as indicia of
truthfulness (CSC Res. No. 990436, CSC Res. No. 966213)
The Rules of Court apply suppletorily to proceedings in administrative bodies,
hence, portions thereof pertaining to evidence may be invoked in
administrative sexual harassment cases.
The Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases (CSC
Resolution No. 01-0940)
I.          Situs of the Offense
Section 4.      Sexual harassment may take place:
1.      in the premises of the workplace or office or of the school or
training institution;
2.      in any place where the parties were found as a result of work or
education or training responsibilities or relations;
3.      at work or education or training-related social functions;
4.      while on official business outside the office or school or training
institution or during work or school or training-related travel;
5.      at official conferences, fora, symposia or training sessions; or
6.      by telephone, cellular phone, fax machine or electronic mail.
II.        Forms of Commission
Section 5.      The following are illustrative forms of sexual harassment:
(a)      Physical
i.      Malicious Touching;
ii.     Overt sexual advances;
iii.    Gestures with lewd insinuation.
(b)      Verbal, such as but not limited to, requests or demands for
sexual favors, and lurid remarks;
(c)      Use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters or writing notes with
sexual underpinnings;
(d)      Other form analogous to the forgoing.
III.       Persons Liable
Section 6.      Any government official or employee, regardless of sex, is
liable for sexual harassment when he/she:
(a)      directly participates in the execution of any act of sexual
harassment as defined by these Rules;
(b)      induces or directs another or others to commit sexual
harassment as defined by these Rules;
(c)      cooperates in the commission of sexual harassment by another
through an act without which the sexual harassment would not have
been accomplished; or
(d)      cooperates in the commission of sexual harassment by
another through previous or simultaneous acts.
IV.       Committee on Decorum and Investigation
Section 7.      A Committee on Decorum and Investigation shall be
created in all national or local agencies of the government, state colleges
and universities, including government-owned or controlled corporations
with original charter. The Committee shall perform the following functions:
(a)      Receive complaints of sexual harassment;
(b)      Investigate sexual harassment complaints in accordance with
the prescribed procedure;
(c)      Submit a report of its findings with the corresponding
recommendation to the disciplining authority for decision;
(d)      Lead in the conduct of discussions about sexual harassment
within the agency or institution to increase understanding and prevent
incidents of sexual harassment;
 Localized Committees on Decorum and Investigation established in the
regional or field offices, as the case may be, of the agency or institution
shall have the same functions as stated above and shall submit the report
of investigation with its recommendation directly to the disciplining
authority.
When a member of the Committee is the complainant or the person
complained of in a sexual harassment case, he/she shall be disqualified
from being a member of the Committee.
Section 8.      Composition. — In a work-related environment, a
Committee on Decorum and Investigation shall be composed of at least
one (1) representative each from the management, the accredited union,
if any, the second level employees, and from the first level employees,
duly selected by the unit concerned.
In an educational or training institution, the Committee shall be composed
of at least one (1) representative from the administration, the trainers,
teachers, instructors, professors or coaches, and students or trainees, as
the case may be, duly selected by the level concerned.
Section 9.      The agency may formulate its own rules governing the term
of office of its members which should be more than two years, and other
matters pertaining to the functions of the Committee not otherwise
provided in these Rules.
V.        Pre-filing SOP in attending to victims of SH
Section 10.     The Pre-filing Stage. — The agency may adopt
mechanisms to provide assistance to an alleged victim of sexual
harassment which may include counseling, referral to an agency offering
professional help, and advice on options available before the filing of the
complaint.
VI.       Standard Procedural Requirements
Section 11.    The procedural rules provided hereunder are the standard
requirements in handling a sexual harassment case.
VI.       Standard Procedural Requirements
Section 12.     Complaint. —
(a)      The complaint may be filed at any time with the disciplining
authority of the office or agency, or with the Committee on Decorum
and Investigation. Upon receipt of the complaint by the disciplining
authority of the office or agency, the same shall be transmitted to the
Committee on Decorum and Investigation, if there is any. In the
absence of a Committee on Decorum and Investigation, the head
office or agency shall immediately cause the creation of Committee
on Decorum and Investigation in accordance with the law and rules,
and transmit the complaint to the Committee.
 (b)      The complaint must be in writing, signed and sworn to by the
complainant. It shall contain the following:
1.     the full name and address of the complainant;
2.     the full name, address, and position of the respondent;
3.     a brief statement of the relevant facts;
4.     evidence, in support of the complainant, if any;
5.     a certification of non-forum shopping.
In the absence of any one of the aforementioned requirements,
the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice to its refiling.
Where the complaint is not under oath, the complainant shall be
summoned by the Committee to swear to the truth of the
allegations in the complainant.
(d)     Withdrawal of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings
shall not preclude the Committee from proceeding with the
investigation where there is obvious truth or merit to the allegations in
the complaint or where there is documentary or direct evidence that
can prove the guilt of the person complained of.
Section 13.    Action on the Complaint. — Upon receipt of a complaint
that is sufficient in form and substance, the Committee on Decorum and
Investigation shall require the person complained of to submit a Counter-
Affidavit/Comment under oath within three (3) days from receipt of the
notice, furnishing a copy thereof to the complainant, otherwise the
Counter-Affidavit/Comment shall be considered as not filed.
Section 14.    Preliminary Investigation. — A preliminary investigation
shall be conducted by the Committee on Decorum and Investigation. The
investigation involves the ex parte examination of documents submitted
by the complainant and the person complained of, as well as documents
readily available from other government offices.
During the preliminary investigation, the parties may submit affidavits and
counter-affidavits.
Upon receipt of the counter-affidavit or comment under oath, the
Committee on Decorum and Investigation may now recommend whether
a prima facie case exists to warrant the issuance of a formal charge.
During preliminary investigation, proceedings before the Committee on
Decorum and Investigation shall be held under strict confidentiality.
Section 15.    Duration of the Investigation. — A preliminary
investigation shall commence not later than five (5) days from receipt of
the complaint by the Committee on Decorum and Investigation and shall
be terminated within fifteen (15) working days thereafter.
Section 16.    Investigation Report. — Within five (5) working days from
the termination of the preliminary investigation, the Committee on
Decorum and Investigation shall submit the Investigation Report and the
complete records of the case to the disciplining authority.
Section 17.    Decision or Resolution After Preliminary
Investigation. —
If a prima facie case is established during the investigation, a formal
charge shall be issued by the disciplining authority within three (3)
working days from receipt of the Investigation Report.
In the absence of a prima facie case, the complaint shall be dismissed
within the same period.
Section 18.    Formal Charge.
— After finding a prima facie case, the     disciplining authority shall
formally charge the person complained of.
— The formal charge shall contain a specification of the charge(s), a
brief statement of material or relevant facts, accompanied by certified
true copies of the documentary evidence, if any, sworn statements
covering the testimony of witnesses, a directive to answer the
charge(s) in writing under oath in not less than seventy-two hours
from receipt thereof, an advice for the respondent to indicate in
his/her answer whether or not he/she elects a formal investigation of
the charge(s), and a notice that he/she is entitled to be assisted by a
counsel of his/her choice.
If the respondent has submitted his/her comment and counter-affidavits
during the preliminary investigation, he/she shall be given the opportunity
to submit additional evidence.
The Committee on Decorum and Investigation shall not entertain requests
for clarification, bills of particulars or motions to dismiss which are
obviously designed to delay the administrative proceeding. If any of these
pleadings is filed by the respondent, the same shall be considered as part
of his/her answer which he/she may file within the remaining period for
filing the answer.
Section 19.    Answer. — The answer which must be in writing and under
oath, shall be specific and shall contain material facts and applicable
laws, if any, including documentary evidence. sworn statements covering
testimonies of witnesses, if there be any, in support of respondent's case.
If shall also include a statement indicating whether he/she elects a formal
investigation.
Section 20.    Failure to File an Answer. — If the respondent fails or
refuses to file his/her answer to the formal charge within seventy-two (72)
hours from receipt thereof without justifiable cause, he/she shall be
considered to have waived his right thereto and formal investigation may
commence.
Section 21.    Preventive Suspension. —
— Upon petition of the complainant or motu proprio upon the
recommendation of the Committee on Decorum and Investigation, at
any time after the service of the Formal Charge to the respondent,
the proper disciplining authority may order the preventive suspension
of the respondent during the formal investigation, if there are reasons
to believe, that he/she is probably guilty of the charges which would
warrant his/her removal from the service.
An order of preventive suspension may be issued to temporarily remove
the respondent from the scene of his/her misfeasance or malfeasance
and to preclude the possibility of his/her exerting undue influence or
pressure on the witnesses against him/her or tampering of documentary
evidence on file with this office.
Section 22.     Duration of Preventive Suspension. — When the
administrative case against the respondent under preventive suspension
is not finally decided by the disciplining authority within the period of
ninety (90) days after the date of his/her preventive suspension, unless
otherwise provided by special law, he/she shall be automatically
reinstated into the service:
Provided, that when the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the
fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, the period of delay should
not be included in the counting of the ninety (90) calendar days period
preventive suspension:
Provided, further, That should the respondent be on paternity/maternity
leave, said preventive suspension shall be deferred or interrupted until
such time that said leave has been fully enjoyed.
Section 23.    Remedies from the Order of Prevention Suspension. —
The respondent may file a motion for reconsideration with the disciplining
authority or may elevate the same to the Civil Service Commission by
way of an appeal within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.
Section 24.    Conduct of Formal Investigation. — Although the
respondent does not request a formal investigation, one shall
nevertheless be conducted by the Committee on Decorum and
Investigation if it deems such investigation as necessary to decide the
case judiciously.
The investigation shall be held not earlier than five (5) days nor later than
ten (10) days from receipt of the respondent's answer. Said investigation
shall be finished within thirty (30) days from the issuance of the formal
charge or the receipt of the answer unless the period is extended by the
disciplining authority in meritorious cases.
Section 25. Pre-hearing Conference. —
At the commencement of the formal investigation, the Committee on
Decorum and Investigation may conduct a pre-hearing conference for the
parties to appear, consider and agree on any of the following:
a.     stipulation of facts;
b.     simplification of issues;
c.     identification and marking of evidence of the parties;
d.     waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
e.     limiting the number of witnesses, and their names;
f.      dates of subsequent hearings; and
g.     such other matters as may aid in the prompt and just resolution
of the case.
The parties may submit position paper/memoranda and submit the case
for resolution based on the result of the pre-hearing conference without
any need for further hearing.
Section 26.    Continuous Hearing Until Terminated; Postponement.
— Hearings hall be conducted on the hearing dates set by the Committee
on Decorum and investigation or as agreed upon during a pre-hearing
conference.
Where no pre-hearing conference is conducted, the parties, their
counsels and witnesses, if any, shall be given a notice of at least five (5)
days before the first scheduled hearing specifying the time, date and
place of the said hearing and subsequent hearings. Thereafter, the
schedule of hearings previously set shall be strictly followed without
further notice. A party shall be granted only three (3) postponements upon
oral or written requests. A further postponement may be granted only
upon written request and subject to the discretion of the Committee on
Decorum and investigation.
If the respondent fails to appear during the scheduled hearings despite
due notice, the investigation shall proceed ex-parte and the respondent is
deemed to have waived his right to be present and to submit evidence in
his favor during those hearings.
Section 27.    Preliminary Matters. — At the start of the hearing, the
Committee on Decorum and Investigation shall note the appearances of
the parties and shall proceed with the reception of evidence for the
complainant.
If the respondent appears without the aid of a counsel, he/she shall be
deemed to have waived his/her right to counsel.
Before taking the testimony of a witness, the Committee on Decorum and
Investigation shall place him/her under oath and then take his/her name,
address, civil status, age, and place of employment.
Section 28.    Appearance of Parties. —
Any person representing any of the parties before any hearing or
investigation shall manifest orally or in writing his/her appearance for
either the respondent or complainant, stating his/her full name and exact
address where he/she can be served with notices and other documents.
Any pleading or appearance made without complying with the above
stated requirements shall not be recognized.
Section 29.    Order of Hearing. — Unless the Committee on Decorum
and Investigation directs otherwise, the order of hearing shall be as
follows:
a.     The complainant shall present evidence in support of the
charge;
b.     The respondent shall then offer evidence in support of his/her
defense;
c.     The complainant may then offer rebuttal evidence, and the
respondent, sur-rebuttal evidence.
Every witness may be examined in the following order:
a.     Direct examination by the proponent;
b.     Cross-examination by the opponent;
c.     Re-direct examination by the opponent;
d.     Re-cross examination by the opponent.
A sworn statement of a witnesses, properly identified and affirmed by the
witness before the Committee on Decorum and Investigation shall
constitute his/her direct testimony.
When the presentation of evidence has been concluded, the parties shall
formally offer their evidence either orally or in writing and thereafter
objections thereto may also be made either orally or in writing. Thereafter,
both parties may be given time to submit their respective memorandum
which in no case shall be beyond five (5) days after the termination of the
investigation. Failure to submit the memorandum within the given period
shall be considered a waiver thereof.
Section 30.    Objections. — All objections raised during the hearing
shall be resolved by the Committee on Decorum and Investigation.
However, objections that cannot be ruled upon by the Committee shall be
noted with the information that the same shall be included in the
memorandum of the concerned party to be ruled upon by the proper
disciplining authority.
The Committee on Decorum and Investigation shall accept all evidence
deemed material and relevant to the case. In case of doubt, the
Committee on Decorum and Investigation shall allow the admission of
evidence subject to the objection interposed against its admission.
Section 31.    Markings. — All documentary evidence or exhibits shall be
properly marked by letters (A, B, C, etc.) if presented by the respondent.
These shall form part of the complete records of the case.
Section 32.    Request for Subpoena. — If a party desires the
attendance of a witness or the production of documents of things, he/she
shall make a request for the issuance of the necessary subpoena, at least
three (3) days before the scheduled hearing.
Section 33.    Issuance of Subpoena. — The Committee on Decorum
and Investigation may issue subpoena ad testificandum to compel the
attendance of witnesses and subpoena duces tecum for the production of
documents or objects.
Section 34.    Records of Proceedings. — The proceedings of the
formal investigation must be recorded either through shorthand or
stenotype or by any other method.
Section 35.    Effect of the Pendency of an Administrative Case. —
The pendency of any administrative case shall not disqualify the
respondent for promotion or from claming maternity/paternity benefits. For
this purpose, an administrative case shall be construed as pending when
the disciplining authority has issued a formal charge.
Section 36.    Formal Investigation Report. —
Within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the formal investigation, a
report containing a narration of the material facts established during the
investigation, the findings and the evidence supporting said findings, as
well as the recommendations, shall be submitted by the Committee on
Decorum and Investigation to the disciplining authority. The complete
records of the case shall be attached to the Report of Investigation.
The complete records shall be systematically and chronologically
arranged, paged, and securely bound to prevent loss. A table of contents
shall be prepared. Whoever is in charge of the transmittal of the complete
records shall be held responsible for any loss or suppression of pages
thereof.
Section 37.    When Case is Decided. — The disciplining authority shall
render his decision on the case within thirty (30) days from receipt of the
Report on Investigation.
Section 38.    Finality of Decisions. — A decision rendered by heads of
agencies where a penalty of suspension for not more than thirty (30) days
or a fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30) days salary is imposed,
shall be final and executory.
 However, if the penalty imposed is suspension exceeding thirty (30) days
or a fine exceeding thirty (30) days salary, the same shall be final and
executory after the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal and no such pleading has been filed.
VII.      Classification of Acts of Sexual Harassment (Grave, Less
Grave and Light)
Section 53.     Sexual harassment is classified as grave, less grave and
light offenses. —
A.     Grave Offenses shall include, but are not limited to:
1.     unwanted touching of private parts of the body (genitalia,
buttocks and breast);
2.     sexual assault;
3.     malicious touching;
4.     requesting for sexual favor in exchange for employment,
promotion, local or foreign travels, favorable working conditions
or assignments, a passing grade, the granting of honors or
scholarship, or the grant of benefits or payment of a stipend or
allowance; and
5.     other analogous cases.
B.     Less Grave Offenses shall include, but are not limited to:
1.     unwanted touching or brushing against a victim's body;
2.     pinching not falling under grave offenses:
3.     derogatory or degrading remarks or innuendoes directed
toward the members of one sex, or ones sexual orientation or
used to describe a person;
4.     verbal abuse with sexual overtones; and
5.     other analogous cases.
C.     The following shall be considered Light Offenses;
1.     surreptitiously looking or staring a look of a person's private
part or worn undergarments;
2.     telling sexist/smutty jokes or sending these through text,
electronic mail or other similar means, causing embarrassment
or offense and carried out after the offender has been advised
that they are offensive or embarrassing or even without such
advise, when they are by their nature clearly embarrassing,
offensive or vulgar;
3.     malicious leering or ogling;
 4.     the display of sexually offensive pictures, materials or
graffiti;
5.     unwelcome inquiries or comments about a person's sex life;
6.     unwelcome sexual flirtation, advances, propositions;
7.     making offensive hand or body gestures at an employee;
8.     persistent unwanted attention with sexual overtones;
9.     unwelcome phone calls with sexual overtones causing
discomfort, embarrassment, offense or insult to the receiver; and
10.   other analogous cases.
VIII.     Administrative Liabilities
Section 54.    The head of office who fails to act within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of any complaint for sexual harassment properly filed against
any employee in that office shall be charged with Neglect of Duty.
Section 55.    Any person who is found guilty of sexual harassment shall,
after the investigation, be meted the penalty corresponding to the gravity
and seriousness of the offense.
Section 56.    The penalties for light, less grave, and grave offenses are
as follows:
A.     For light offenses:
1st offense — Reprimand
2nd offense — Fine or suspension not exceeding thirty
(30) days
3rd offense — Dismissal
B.     For less grave offenses:
1st offense — Fine or suspension of not less than thirty
(30) days and not exceeding six (6) months
2nd offense — Dismissal
C.     For grave offenses: Dismissal
Section 57.    If the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or
counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the
most serious charge or count and the rest shall be considered as
aggravating circumstances.