Lawyerly

AM No. P-07-2366

2009-04-16

TINGA, J.

As emphasized in Advincula v. Dicen,[15] the PDS is an official document required of a government employee and official by the Civil Service Commission. It is the repository of all information about any government employee and official regarding his personal background, qualification, and eligibility. Since truthful completion of the PDS is a requirement for employment in the judiciary, the importance of answering the same with candor need not be gainsaid. Concealment of any information in the PDS, therefore, warrants disciplinary action against the erring employee.[16]

GR No. 143538

2009-02-13

VICENTE A. MIEL v. JESUS A. MALINDOG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A PDS is an official document required of a government employee and official by the Civil Service Commission. It is the repository of all information about any government employee or official regarding his personal background, qualification, and eligibility. Government employees are tasked under the Civil Service rules to properly and completely accomplish their PDS.[30] The act of making untruthful statements, or concealment of any information in the PDS, constitutes dishonesty and is punishable under the Civil Service rules.[31] Dishonesty is a "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness."[32] Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the discipline and morale of the service.[33]

GR No. 154155

2008-08-06

OMBUDSMAN v. BEN C. JURADO

REYES, R.T., J.

In Advincula v. Dicen,[42] the Court found a provincial agriculturist liable for misconduct despite his protestations anchored on reliance to a subordinate. In finding him liable, the Court scored the said official for failing to scrutinize each and every document proffered to him by subordinates. In Amane v. Mendoza-Arce,[43] respondent clerk of court was held liable for neglect of duty for failing to discipline her subordinates and make sure that they regularly and promptly performed their duties. In the case under review, respondent was careless or negligent in overseeing, conducting, or carrying on the business of his office as to furnish the opportunity for the default of a subordinate.

AM No. P-06-2192

2008-06-12

JUDGE LUISITO C. SARDILLO v. SHERWIN M. BALOLOY

PER CURIAM

No less than the Constitution provides that "[p]ublic 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."[26] This central tenet in a government official's career is more than just a moral imploration. It is a legal imperative. There is a constant need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government and its agencies and instrumentalities. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity.[27]

GR NO. 158672

2007-08-07

COA v. AGAPITO A. HINAMPAS

GARCIA, J.

In an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, meaning that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[11] Further, precedents teach us that the factual findings of the OOMB, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive,[12] and such findings made by an administrative body which has acquired expertise are accorded not only respect but even finality.[13]

AM NO. P-05-1985

2007-07-26

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. SANTOS ENRIE P. PEROCHO

PER CURIAM

In Advincula v. Dicen,[10] the Court emphasized that the PDS is an official document required of a government employee and official by the CSC. It is the repository of all information about any government employee and official regarding his personal background, qualification, and eligibility.[11] Since truthful completion of the PDS is a requirement for employment in the judiciary, the importance of answering the same with candor need not be gainsaid.[12] Concealment of any information in the PDS, therefore, warrants disciplinary action against the erring employee.

AM NO. P-05-1985

2007-07-26

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. SANTOS ENRIE P. PEROCHO

PER CURIAM

Misconduct, by uniform legal definition, is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior as well as gross negligence by a public officer.[20] To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[21] In this case, respondent's submission of his PDS is not related to or connected with the performance of his official functions and duties as a government employee. The CSC and the investigating officer failed to show reasonable connection that the offense committed constitutes grave misconduct. Thus, we find respondent guilty only of dishonesty.

GR NO. 158960

2006-11-24

LORNA FRANCES FILIPINO v. F. WALTER R. MACABUHAY

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Finally, the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals correctly held that there is substantial evidence proving petitioner's liability under R.A. No. 6713. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[32] The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming.[33]

GR NO. 159314

2006-06-26

EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA

QUISUMBING, J.

In an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[13] Further, precedents tell us that the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive,[14] and such findings made by an administrative body which has acquired expertise are accorded not only respect but even finality.[15]

GR NO. 160573

2005-10-19

GRACE A. BASMAYOR v. LOIDA B. ATENCIO

QUISUMBING, J.

Equally noteworthy, the CSC dismissed the charges of falsification of public document against Atencio for lack of prima facie evidence; the CSCRO No. XI found the signature of the director was not forged; that Atencio issued the memorandum upon instructions of the director; that based on records, petitioner violated the Civil Service Rules on the number of allowable absences; and that petitioner was properly informed of her offense and her dismissal. These were affirmed by Director Cueva in the memorandum issued on November 3, 2000. Such findings made by an administrative body, which is supported by the records, is accorded not only respect but even finality.[25] Hence, after a careful scrutiny of the records, we find no cause to disturb the CSC's findings.

	AM No. P-07-2366 2009-04-16	OCA v. MARIA CELIA A. FLORES TINGA, J.
As emphasized in Advincula v. Dicen,[15] the PDS is an official document required of a government employee and official by the Civil Service Commission. It is the repository of all information about any government employee and official regarding his personal background, qualification, and eligibility. Since truthful completion of the PDS is a requirement for employment in the judiciary, the importance of answering the same with candor need not be gainsaid. Concealment of any information in the PDS, therefore, warrants disciplinary action against the erring employee.[16]
	GR No. 143538 2009-02-13	VICENTE A. MIEL v. JESUS A. MALINDOG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A PDS is an official document required of a government employee and official by the Civil Service Commission. It is the repository of all information about any government employee or official regarding his personal background, qualification, and eligibility. Government employees are tasked under the Civil Service rules to properly and completely accomplish their PDS.[30] The act of making untruthful statements, or concealment of any information in the PDS, constitutes dishonesty and is punishable under the Civil Service rules.[31] Dishonesty is a "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness."[32] Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the discipline and morale of the service.[33]
	GR No. 154155 2008-08-06	OMBUDSMAN v. BEN C. JURADO REYES, R.T., J.
In Advincula v. Dicen,[42] the Court found a provincial agriculturist liable for misconduct despite his protestations anchored on reliance to a subordinate. In finding him liable, the Court scored the said official for failing to scrutinize each and every document proffered to him by subordinates. In Amane v. Mendoza-Arce,[43] respondent clerk of court was held liable for neglect of duty for failing to discipline her subordinates and make sure that they regularly and promptly performed their duties. In the case under review, respondent was careless or negligent in overseeing, conducting, or carrying on the business of his office as to furnish the opportunity for the default of a subordinate.
	AM No. P-06-2192 2008-06-12	JUDGE LUISITO C. SARDILLO v. SHERWIN M. BALOLOY PER CURIAM
No less than the Constitution provides that "[p]ublic 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."[26] This central tenet in a government official's career is more than just a moral imploration. It is a legal imperative. There is a constant need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government and its agencies and instrumentalities. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity.[27]
	GR NO. 158672 2007-08-07	COA v. AGAPITO A. HINAMPAS GARCIA, J.
In an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, meaning that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[11] Further, precedents teach us that the factual findings of the OOMB, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive,[12] and such findings made by an administrative body which has acquired expertise are accorded not only respect but even finality.[13]
	AM NO. P-05-1985 2007-07-26	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. SANTOS ENRIE P. PEROCHO PER CURIAM
In Advincula v. Dicen,[10] the Court emphasized that the PDS is an official document required of a government employee and official by the CSC. It is the repository of all information about any government employee and official regarding his personal background, qualification, and eligibility.[11] Since truthful completion of the PDS is a requirement for employment in the judiciary, the importance of answering the same with candor need not be gainsaid.[12] Concealment of any information in the PDS, therefore, warrants disciplinary action against the erring employee.
	AM NO. P-05-1985 2007-07-26	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. SANTOS ENRIE P. PEROCHO PER CURIAM
Misconduct, by uniform legal definition, is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior as well as gross negligence by a public officer.[20] To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[21] In this case, respondent's submission of his PDS is not related to or connected with the performance of his official functions and duties as a government employee. The CSC and the investigating officer failed to show reasonable connection that the offense committed constitutes grave misconduct. Thus, we find respondent guilty only of dishonesty.
	GR NO. 158960 2006-11-24	LORNA FRANCES FILIPINO v. F. WALTER R. MACABUHAY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals correctly held that there is substantial evidence proving petitioner's liability under R.A. No. 6713. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[32] The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming.[33]
	GR NO. 159314 2006-06-26	EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA QUISUMBING, J.
In an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[13] Further, precedents tell us that the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive,[14] and such findings made by an administrative body which has acquired expertise are accorded not only respect but even finality.[15]
	GR NO. 160573 2005-10-19	GRACE A. BASMAYOR v. LOIDA B. ATENCIO QUISUMBING, J.
Equally noteworthy, the CSC dismissed the charges of falsification of public document against Atencio for lack of prima facie evidence; the CSCRO No. XI found the signature of the director was not forged; that Atencio issued the memorandum upon instructions of the director; that based on records, petitioner violated the Civil Service Rules on the number of allowable absences; and that petitioner was properly informed of her offense and her dismissal. These were affirmed by Director Cueva in the memorandum issued on November 3, 2000. Such findings made by an administrative body, which is supported by the records, is accorded not only respect but even finality.[25] Hence, after a careful scrutiny of the records, we find no cause to disturb the CSC's findings.

FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA v. ROMEO DICEN