You are on page 1of 31


PENALTY Dismissal 1st offense 1st offense
from the -6 months and 1 - 1 month & 1 day
service day to 1 year to 6 months

2nd offense 2nd offense
- Dismissal from - 6 months and 1
the service day to 1 year

3rd offense
- dismissal


PENALTY Dismissal from 1st offense
the service - 1 month & 1 day to 6

2nd offense
- 6 months and 1 day to 1

DISHONESTY SERIOUS LESS SIMPLE SERIOUS DEGREE Serious and Damage and Act did not cause OF grave prejudice to the damage and DAMAGE prejudice to government is prejudice to the government not so serious government .

DISHONESTY SERIOUS LESS SIMPLE SERIOUS RELATIONS Directly No direct No direct relation TO related with relation to or to or does not FUNCTIONS duties/ does not involve involve the duties functions the duties and and responsibilities responsibilities of of the the respondent respondent .

graft and corruption 4.The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the dishonest act. accountable forms or money for which he is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain. SERIOUS DISHONESTY 1.The dishonest act directly involves property.The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the respondent .The dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the government 2. 3.

The dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions.Other analogous circumstances .5.The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment. 6. cheating. and use of crib sheets 8. 7. but not limited to.The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as. impersonation.

De Leoz. 2003) . P-02-1620. Pimentel’s act is gross and blatant act of Dishonesty. it disturbingly shows her disregard of office rules. Not only does it reveal her deplorable lack of candor.M. April 1. she unjustly enriched herself by receiving her salaries during said period without rendering the required service. Moreover. (Pimentel vs. A. Is she liable for Serious Dishonesty? Yes. No.PROBLEM: Pimentel submitted her DTR to make it appear that she was religiously reporting to work during said period.

FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS •Misrepresentation of a thing. . certifying that a thing is true when it is not. fact or condition. whether or not one has the right to make the representation or certificate. •It is immaterial whether it has caused damage to a third person or not.

The accomplishment of the PDS is required under Civil Service Rules and Regulations for employment in the government. No. 2003) . The making of an untruthful statement therein amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document that warrant dismissal from the service even on the first offense.PROBLEM: Can you be dismissed from the service by making untruthful statements or erroneous entries in your Personal Data Sheet (PDS)? Yes. 2003-7-SC. December 15. Luna.M. (Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document against Noel V. A. SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer.

He argued that he cannot be guilty of Serious Dishonesty because what he committed has nothing to do with the performance of his functions. When respondent’s real wife discovered that he used her name to claim PhilHealth benefits. Respondent was found guilty of Serious Dishonesty. she filed a complaint against him. respondent accomplished PhilHealth forms wherein he made it appear that the woman who was confined in a hospital due to missed abortion and complete curettage is his wife.PROBLEM: •To avail of PhilHealth benefits. Is he correct? .

2013) . Dishonesty. NO. in order to warrant dismissal.. CSC Decision No. (Bardon. 131109. Respondent is even guilty of Falsification of Official Documents. November 26. Eddie B. need not be committed in the course of performance of duty.

G. No. GRAVE MISCONDUCT A deviation from the established norms of conduct required of a public servant An intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior the act must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties (Hernando v. A. 191218. 2011. P-09-2686.M. May 31.R. Bengson. March 28. Mayordomo. GSIS v. No. 2011) .

PROBLEM: •Mario is a process server of a Municipal Trial Court. He was found to be in possession of 790 grams of Marijuana without the necessary permit. No. Is he guilty of Grave Misconduct? Yes. A. P-10-2788) . (OCA v. Lopez.M. Flagrant violation of the law is considered Grave Misconduct.

PROBLEM: •During DILG Christmas party. Ganzon armed with firearm acted menacingly towards OIC Provincial Director Arlos.Is Ganzon guilty of Grave Misconduct? . He pointed his firearm at Arlos chest causing the latter to run due to extreme fear of his life. Ganzon’s act was due to the poor performance rating given by Arlos.

•Yes. 174321) . Ganzon is liable for Grave Misconduct. Arlos. To begin with. surely a matter that concerned his performance of duty. GR No. 2013. October 22. he was not acting in his private capacity when he acted menacingly towards Arlos. it being clear that his resentment of his poor performance rating. motivated his confronting the latter. (Ganzon vs.

Victoria Q. Is respondent guilty of Gross Neglect? Yes she is liable for Gross Neglect of Duty which is punishable by dismissal (Salvador. CSC Decision No. 140435. PROBLEM: •Respondent Provincial Treasurer failed to liquidate her cash advances in full within the prescribed period despite her receipt of the demand letters.. June 10. 2014) .

m. Estampa to stay home and he did. from her work at the Davao Medical Center where most of the bombing victims were brought for treatment. 2003. He learned of the bombing incident between 7 to 8 p. His wife arrived at 9 p.PROBLEM: Estampa is the Medical Officer VI of Davao City Health Office. at around 6 p. killing 22 persons and injuring 113 others.m. She prevailed on Dr. Estampa had just arrived home at that time and was taking care of his one-year-old daughter. a powerful bomb exploded at the passengers’ terminal of the Davao InternationalAirport.. Dr. Is there any liability? .m. On March 4.

Besides. he had the choice to resign from it when he realized that he did not have the will and the heart to respond. June 21. G. (Estampa vs.Yes. he is liable for Gross Neglect of Duty. 190681.R No. knowing that his job as Senior Medical Health Officer entailed the commitment to make a measure of personal sacrifice. A person’s duty to his family is not incompatible with his job-related commitment to come to the rescue of victims of disasters. 2010) . City Government of Davao.

3.LESS SERIOUS DISHONESTY 1.Other analogous cases .The respondent did not take advantage of his/her position in committing the dishonest act.The dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government which is not so serious as to qualify under the immediately preceding classification 2.

Blanco did not issue this medical certificate. During the interim. Salvaña was directed to comply with this office order but instead of complying. Dr. In support of her application. she submitted a medical certificate issued by Dr. 2006. Blanco also denied having seen or treated Salvaña on May 15. 2006 and from May 15 to May 31. Grace Marie Blanco of the Veterans Memorial Medical Center (VMMC). Atty. Salvaña was directed to handle special projects and perform such other duties and functions as may be assigned to her by the Light Rail Transit Authority Administrator. LRTA discovered that Dr. Salvaña applied for sick leave of absence on May 12. 2006. the date stated on her medical certificate. Salvana? .PROBLEM: Atty. What is the administrative liability of Atty. Salvaña questioned the order with the Office of the President. Aurora A.

cannot be classified as serious since the information falsified had no direct relation to her employment. This act of causing damage or prejudice. Salvaña’s application for sick leave. however. was supported by a false medical certificate which allowed her to be absent from work without any deductions from her salary. The receipt of her salaries during this period is tantamount to causing damage or prejudice to the government since had received compensation she was not entitled to receive. Atty. . Less Serious Dishonesty.

March 4. (Castil.Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service •The misconduct is not related to official functions or duties •Such unwarranted act of the respondent. CSC Decision No. Saturnino A. 2014) .. 140181. which resulted in an undue prejudice to the best interest of the service where the government was denied of a committed service.

Is she liable? . the Acting Budget Officer of DAR to purchase narra door panels for personal use. She asked personal favor to Auayang.PROBLEM: •Peñaflorida is the Budget and Management Specialist in charge of processing the accounts payable of DAR.

2006) . Otherwise. asking of personal favors on the part of the DBM employee would be perceived as condition for the release of the agency’s budget. she should not ask personal favors from his client-agency who follow- up requests for release of their budget. CSC Resolution No . Juancho L. 06-2122 dated November 28. Being DBM employee who is in charge of accounts payable of DAR. (Peñaflorida.Yes.

SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY > Mere delay in the performance of one's function has been consistently considered simple neglect of duty .

without asking approval from the Sangguniang Bayan advised the mayor to source the funds from theP1.000 MOOE/RMF allocation in the approved Municipal Annual Budget for 2002. This caused a case before the Ombudsman. Legal Officer.PROBLEM: Mayor Vicente Salumbides III saw the urgent need to construct a two-classroom building with fence (the projects) for the Tagkawayan Municipal High School. who suggested that the construction of the two- classroom building be charged to the account of the (MOOE/RMF). as the same had been done in a previous classroom building project of the former mayor. Mayor consulted Salumbides. Salumbides. Is there liability? .000.

she fell short of the reasonable diligence required of her. for failing to exercise due care and prudence in ascertaining the legal requirements and fiscal soundness of the projects before stamping her imprimatur and giving her advice to her superior. . In the present case. Salumbides is liable for Simple neglect of duty.

In falsification of official document. SIMPLE DISHONESTY 1. where the information falsified is not related to his/her employment 4.Did not cause damage or prejudice to the government 2. .The dishonest act did not result in any gain or benefit to the offender.No direct relation to or does not involve the duties and responsibilities of the respondent 3.

it will not redound to her benefit considering that such eligibility is irrelevant to her present appointment. With or without the false declaration. Is respondent guilty of serious dishonesty? No. misrepresented in his PDS that he passed the Career Service Professional Examination. Even if Andaya misrepresented her alleged career service professional eligibility in her PDS. She can only be held liable for Simple Dishonesty .PROBLEM: Andaya. Utility Worker A. the fact of her being appointed as Utility Worker A under permanent status remains.

“Self-disciplined begins with the mastery of your thoughts. Simply.” Napoleon Hill American author. you can't control what you do. If you don't control what you think. 1883-1970 . self-discipline enables you to think first and act afterward.