MELBA DAVA, PETITIONER, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
DIY, J.:
The antecedents are as follows:
The instant case originated from a Formal Charge[3] for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Committing Acts Punishable under Anti-Graft Laws, Violation of Reasonable Office Regulations, Falsification of Official Documents, Contracting Loans of Money or Other Property from Persons with whom the Office of the Employee Concerned has Business Relations, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service filed by Land Bank of the Philippines (hereafter, “LANDBANK”) against petitioner before the Board of Directors of LANDBANK.
LANDBANK charged petitioner with the following illegal acts, viz:[4]
- That while being the Chief of Division (COD) of the Cash Department, LANDBANK, Antique Branch, you extended loans of money to branch client Gemma Tating and in the process requiring her to leave with you pre-signed but blank withdrawal slips as a guarantee therefor and that on April 22, 1999, you caused the withdrawal of P19,000.00 from the account of Ms. Tating at LANDBANK Antique Branch using one of the pre-signed withdrawal slips of Ms. Tating by requesting and convincing branch janitor, Ferdinand Marquez, to act as Ms. Tating’s representative and that you were the one who actually received the proceeds thereof from him. At the same time, you were the approving officer of the withdrawal transaction and, by your own admission, you had business transactions with Ms. Tating, for and in behalf of your husband, Douglas Dava.
- That on September 29, 1998 and while being the COD of the Cash Department, LANDBANK Antique Branch, you borrowed P12,000.00 from the PICOS[5] of Branch Teller Vinalee Espares without the requisite cash transfer slip and paid the same from the proceeds of the PVAO (Philippine Veterans Administration Office) check of Mr. Venancio Mostacho, which check was supposed to be for deposit only, the encashment of which was facilitated by you thru the signature endorsement of the Branch Document Examiner, Mr. Victor Vargas, who signed upon your request. Further, you yourself validated the said check and received the proceeds thereof from the paying teller.
That when the above transaction was ordered reversed by the Branch Manager, Ms. Portia Bravo, you caused and facilitated the withdrawal of the P12,000 from the branch deposit account of Ms. Marife Tordesillas, by filling up a withdrawal slip and then ordering and persuading Branch Teller, Vinalee Espares, to take up the withdrawal transaction even without the signature of said depositor on the condition and your promise that the client’s signature will follow, after the Document Examiner, Mr. Vargas, earlier refused your request for him to verify the same withdrawal slip without the client’s signature. Furthermore, the amount withdrawn was received by you as the depositor’s representative and which you used to pay the P12,000.00 you borrowed from Branch Teller Espares earlier in the day.
- That while being the COD, Cash Department, LANDBANK, Antique Branch, you borrowed the amount of P100,00.00 from Branch client, Ms. Consorcia Villanueva by withdrawing and/or causing the withdrawal of the said amount from her Branch PSP account which withdrawal transaction you approved and the proceeds thereof received by your husband, Mr. Douglas Dava.
- That on July 16, 1999, while being the COD of the Cash Department, LANDBANK, Antique Branch, and during the turnover of your cashiering functions to Ms. Daryl Gumboc, wherein you concealed the shortage of P500,000.00 by reflecting a total cash beginning balance of P4,138,179.42 when it should have been P4,638,179.42, by understating the beginning balance for the P500.00 and P100.00 bills by P450,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively, under the column ‘BALANCE PREVIOUS DAY’ and in the process, also understating the figures for sub-total for bills and grand total also under the column ‘BALANCE PREVIOUS DAY’, by P500,000.00. At the same time, you also understated the figures pertaining to the P500.00 and P100.00 bills under the columns ‘BALANCE’ and ‘TOTAL’ by P450,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively, and likewise, you understated the figures pertaining to the sub-total for bills and grand total under the columns “BALANCE” and “TOTAL” by P500,000.00. In addition, you reflected in the same CIV[6] summary a different composition of the bills actually received as cash assistance from Allied Bank, Antique in the amount of P1.0 Million by understating the P1,000.00 bills by P500,000.00 and overstating the P500.00 and P100.00 bills by P450,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively.
And after the CIV summary (as you originally prepared and presented) was signed by Ms. Daryl Gumboc, you took custody of the same, caused the alterations to reflect the true figures to include the shortage of P500,000.00 by altering the entries/figures pertaining to the following:
1) Under the column “PREVIOUS DAY BALANCE”
a) 2nd line pertaining to the P500.00 bills;
b) 2nd line pertaining to the P100.00 bills;
c) 8th line pertaining to the sub-total for bills; and
d) last line pertaining to the GRAND TOTAL;2) Under the column “BALANCE”
a) 2nd line pertaining to the P500.00 bills;
b) 2nd line pertaining to the P100.00 bills;
c) 8th line pertaining to the sub-total for bills; and
d) last line pertaining to the GRAND TOTAL;3) Under the column “TOTAL”
a) 2nd line pertaining to the P500.00 bills;
b) 2nd line pertaining to the P100.00 bills;
c) 8th line pertaining to the sub-total for bills; and
d) last line pertaining to the GRAND TOTAL;and then on July 18, 1999, a Sunday, you went to the residence of Manager Portia Bravo to request her to affix her signature to the “altered” CIV Summary for July 16, 1999 such that the shortage of P500,000.00 was discovered only on July 19,1999 when the altered CIV Summary was received and seen by Ms. Daryl Gumboc.
Petitioner filed her Answer[7] dated May 31, 2000. Petitioner asserted no irregularity with respect to the allegation that she lent money to a friend. Moreover, she contended that withdrawal of the amount of P19,000.00 from the account of Ms. Gemma Tating by Ferdinand Marquez and her act of filling up the pre-signed withdrawal slip of Ms. Tating were with the latter’s consent. Besides, petitioner claimed that her approval of the no-book withdrawal transaction respecting Ms. Tating’s account was made in her capacity as the next-in-rank officer of the bank in the absence of the branch manager and is a long-practiced policy of the bank. Petitioner further denied having borrowed P12,000.00 from the PICOS of branch teller, Espares. With respect to the client Mostacho’s PVAO check wherein petitioner appeared as the last endorser, she asserted that she signed the same for credit to the account of said client. Branch manager Bravo consented thereto, specifically to the arrangement of taking this up as cash deposit, but was later reversed on the prodding of branch accountant Rex C. German. With respect to the P100,000.00 withdrawal from the account of Mrs. Consorcia Villanueva, petitioner contended that it was a personal transaction with Mrs. Consorcia Villanueva, the latter being her grand aunt. Mrs. Villanueva gave full consent and authority for said withdrawal to help petitioner in the financial difficulty of the latter’s family. Moreover, said amount was withdrawn way back in 1996. However, the issue cropped up only in 1999. Petitioner’s approval of withdrawal of said amount from the account of Mrs. Consorcia Villanueva was within petitioner’s approving limit and not violative of any banking rule or procedure.
With respect to the allegation of the shortage of P500,000.00, petitioner contended in her Answer:[8]
Before 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day, Ms. Daryl C. Gumboc, who was on programmed leave, arrived from Pandan, Antique.
At about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of July 16, 1999, respondent received from Mrs. Portia A. Bravo Cluster Order No. 178 dated July 12, 1999 re-assigning her to the Regional Office as Acting Technical Assistant-Banking. Upon receipt of the said Order, respondent was requested by Ms. Bravo to prepare and turn over all her accountabilities — cash and accountable forms, keys, combination, files, including the file of the CIV Summary covering the months of January to July 16, 1999. Stated otherwise, Respondent was made to prepare and to turn over everything that was inside the vault of the bank and all her documents like the Logbook, Security Folders, and all other documents for which she is accountable to the bank.
Respondent asked if the COA representative was notified but Manager Bravo and Ms. Hilay said that “we think it is not needed anymore as the turnover is internal”.
In compliance with the request of Ms. Bravo, Respondent prepared the List of things to be turned over to the incoming cashier, Daryl C, Gumboc, which are as follows:
xxx
Thereafter, respondent verified her accountable forms and made a physical inventory of all the items listed to be turned over to the incoming cashier. The physical inventory was made in the presence of Daryl C. Gumboc, Janice Hilay, the representative of the Regional Office who personally carried Cluster Order No. 178, and the Accountant of the bank, Mr. Rex C. German, who all participated in the physical inventory.
After the physical inventory, respondent prepared the CIV Summary for the Dollars. Thereafter, Daryl C. Gumboc verified the report/summary and opened the dollar cash box and physically counted its contents in the presence and with the participation of Janice Hilay. After which, Gumboc affixed [sic] her signature to the summary to show proof of the fact that she has officially received the exact ending dollar balance as of July 16, 1999 in accordance with the summary earlier given to her by the respondent.
After the physical count and/or inventory of the ending dollar balance as of July 16, 1999, respondent made a written report of the Peso CIV Summary and she came out with P4,198,586.27 as the ending peso balance as of July 16, 1999. In this Peso CIV Summary, corrections were made because the actual cash holdings per denomination as of July 15, 1999 vary from the CIV Peso Summary that Respondent prepared for the same day, July 15, 1999, although the total of both the CIV Peso Summary and the actual cash holdings as of said date are the same — P4,638,179.42
xxx
When respondent prepared the Peso CIV Summary on July 16, 1999, she was about to correct the ending figure of the July 15, 1999 report, to reflect the actual cash holdings per denomination, as of July 15, 1999 in the “Balance Previous Day” column of July 16, 1999 CIV Summary amounting to P4,516,450.00, representing the total amount of the Peso Bills on hand, however, it would reflect a discrepancy in the denominations as compared to the CIV Summary Report prepared on July 15, 1999 even though the totals would reflect the same figure.
In preparing the beginning balance of the Peso CIV Summary as of July 16, 1999, Respondent inadvertently reflected the amount in the denominations as follows:
P500— P1,152,000.00 instead of P1,602,000.00
P100— P196,000.00 instead of P246,000.00
The P1000 peso bill denomination reflected an overage [sic] of P500,000.00 in the Peso CIV Summary Report of July 15, 1999 as compared to the actual cash holding of even date. Thus, to initially correct the said summary, Respondent deducted the P500,000.00 from the denominations of P500 – in the amount of P450,000.00 and P100 – in the amount of P50,000.00 instead of adding the P450,000.00 in the P500 denomination and P50,000.00 in the denomination of P100 in the ending balance of July 15, 1999 Peso CIV Summary Report. Respondent came up with the total sum of Peso Bills in the amount of P4,016,450.00 because of the understated figure reflected in the P500 and P100 denomination that resulted to the following balances:
P500 – (P58,500.00)
P100 – 3,000.00
Due to the understated figures in the P500 and P100 peso denominations, the peso bills sub-total amounted to P1,297,850.00 and a grand total of P1,411,550.46. If added to the “Withdrawn from CB” column, the sum totalled [sic] P2,411,550.46.
When Respondent verified and had a physical bundle count of the money inside the vault before the turn-over, she came out with the following figures:
| Actual Count (Balance+ CB Column) | |
| P1000 – | P1,451,000.00 |
| P 500- | 1,041,500.00 |
| P 100- | 203,000.00 |
| P 50- | 31,500.00 P 20- 47,600.00 |
| P 10- | 22,700.00 |
| P 5- | 550.00 |
| Total Bills | P2,797,850.00 |
It was then that the adjustments in the “Withdrawn from CB” Column were made as follows:
| Actual Cash from | CB Adjustment | |
| P1000— | P 700,000.00 | P 200,000.00 |
| P 500— | 200,000.00 | 650,000.00 |
| P 100— | 100,000.00 | 150,000.00 |
| TOTAL | P1,000,000.00 | P1,000,000.00 |
The total amount withdrawn from CB reflected a total amount of P1,000,000.00 even if there were adjustments and these adjustments were made to reflect the actual cash holdings per denomination (balance + withdrawn from CB column) that was physically counted by the Respondent in the amount of P2,911,550.46 before the actual cash count and turnover.
The amount of P2,911,550.46 was physically verified and counted jointly/simultaneously by Ms. Gumboc, Ms. Hilay, and Mr. German. This they did by taking out from the vault of the bank, all the peso bills inside the vault. Then, they counted all these peso bills by hand and some by or through the bill/money counter. They likewise counted the coins by pack/bag inside the vault.
After they counted the P2,911,550.46, Respondent was not informed of any discrepancy in the contents of the vault. The basis of their counting was the CIV Summary Report with corrections which Respondent prepared during the day, July 16, 1999, up to the column “Withdrawn from CB”.
As the Tellers’ were preparing their cash holdings for turn over to the Cashier, Ms. Hilay complained that she was hungry and she wanted to take her supper. Ms. Bravo likewise agreed and invited Ms. Hilay to take their dinner after ascertaining that Respondent’s cash holdings inside the vault was in order.
At that time, the cash holdings of the Tellers, that were supposed to be turned over to the Respondent, were counted by Ms. Gumboc and Mr. German.
After which, Ms. Gumboc asked Respondent to add the same in the CIV Summary. Respondent added the amounts, using all the Cash Transfer Slips, turned over by the tellers as part of the Cash in Vault to reflect the Total Cash in Vault as of July 16, 1999. During the addition of the figures, Respondent added the following:
CB Transfer Slip Corrected Amount
P500 —200,000.00 instead of 650,000.00
P100—100,000.00 instead of 150,000.00
Thus, resulted to the understatement for the denominations P500 and P100 in the amount of P450,000.00 and P50,000.00 respectively.
This was then corrected to reflect the adjustments made on the “Withdrawn from CB” column to conform with the actual physical cash holdings in the amount of P4,198,586.27 as of end of transaction day of July 16, 1999.
All the corrections and or adjustments made in the Peso CIV Summary of July 16, 1999 were made known by the Respondent to the incoming Cashier, Ms. Daryl C. Gumboc. In fact, it was used by Ms. Gumboc, Ms. Janice Hilay, and Mr. Rex C. German as the basis of their verification and actual physical cash count/inventory of Respondent’s Peso Accountability as of end of transaction day of July 16, 1999.
This was physically verified by Ms. Daryl C. Gumboc, Ms. Janice Hilay, and Mr. Rex C. German who, in the presence of respondent, made a cash count of the actual peso cash holdings of respondent as of July 16, 1999. This they did by taking out from the vault of the bank all the peso bills inside the said vault. Then, they counted all these peso bills by hand and some by or through the bill/money counter. They, likewise, counted the coins and money from the tellers. After which, Daryl C. Gumboc, as the incoming cashier, signed with approval the Peso CIV Summary — a summary which includes all the peso bills and coins inside the vault and all monies (coins and peso bills) outside the vault and from the tellers which are to be deposited/safekept inside the vault.
Respondent prepared a Cash Proof, two Peso CIV Summaries — one for the COA and the other one for the Branch Office which is usually handed over to the cashier for her custody. In this instance, all copies including the second copy (intended for COA) were handed over by the Respondent to Gumboc, and it was from Ms. Gumboc that the Respondent was able to obtain another copy — she had it xeroxed that very evening of July 16, 1999, and gave back all the original copies to Ms. Gumboc for filing and her disposal.
At the time Respondent handed over the Cash Proof and CIV Summaries to Ms. Gumboc, Ms. Hilay and Ms. Bravo were out taking their dinner. Note, however, that Ms. Gumboc just the same affixed her signature to the said summary. After obtaining her xeroxed copies of the duly signed Cash Proof and Peso CIV Summary, Respondent left for home. Respondent left behind and placed on the table of Ms. Bravo the xeroxed copies of the CIV Summary and other papers which Ms. Bravo was supposed to sign at that point in time.
On July 17, 1999 — a Saturday, Respondent returned to the office to get her personal files. NOTA BENE: Those present were the following: Guard, Bookkeeper Jairus Tamayo, Teller Ida Alecando. NB: Respondent cannot possibly have taken anything other than her files because she had already surrendered the keys and combinations of the vault. NB: Once the combination is surrendered by the cashier to an incoming officer or cashier the latter, as a matter of procedure, will have to immediately change the combination. And, granting arguendo that the combinations were not changed, it would still be highly impossible to force open the vault because it will require the key and the combination to open the said vault. Besides, the combination is dual — one combination is entrusted to the Cashier and the other combination is entrusted to the Accountant/Manger.
In the afternoon of July 18, 1999 — a Sunday, Respondent went to the office to surrender to the property custodian the properties under her accountability — like table and chairs, bill counter and the vault and the aircons and the computers. This was done on a Sunday because at the time the inventory of these properties were made in the evening of July 16, 1999, the property custodian was already out of the office. Besides, it was upon the request of the property custodian that the indorsement or surrender of these properties be done on July 18, 1999 because he still has to look for the memorandum receipts which was issued to the Respondent for the vault and other personal properties of the office.
On July 19, 1999, Respondent officially reported to her assigned station at the Regional Office of Land Bank of the Philippines in Iloilo City.
The alledged [sic] cash count conducted on July 19, 1999, in which Respondent was not present, was done in the late afternoon of the said day, after the Bank has transacted with the banking public. Anything that may have happened during this cash count cannot possibly be said to have been done in all good faith as Respondent, even for reasons of courtesy and basic due process, should have been notified of this activity if only to afford this whole affair some semblance of fairness and equity.
On October 17, 2006, the hearing officer Jaime C. Padios issued a Resolution[9] recommending petitioner’s dismissal from service. He found petitioner guilty of the charge of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service when petitioner borrowed P12,000.00 from the PICOS of the teller without issuing a Cash Transfer Slip. Moreover, he found petitioner guilty of Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Document, Grave Misconduct for the shortage of P500,000.00 and the alterations she made on the CIV Summary and on the Cash Proof to conceal such shortage. Furthermore, petitioner committed the following which aggravated her offenses: Taking Advantage of Official Position, Taking Undue Advantage of Subordinate, Commission of Offense during Office Hours and Within the Premises of the Office, and Employment of Fraudulent Means to Commit or Conceal the Offense.
The subject Resolution was approved and concurred in by the Land Bank Board of Directors in its Resolution dated November 7, 2006.[10]
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration[11] was denied.[12] Hence, petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission (hereafter, “CSC”).[13]
On May 19, 2008, the CSC affirmed the Resolution of the LBP Board of Directors.[14] The CSC limited its discussion in its Resolution on the charges of cash shortage of P500,000.00 and falsifying the CIV Summary after it found that petitioner was found guilty of these charges only. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Melba A. Dava, Chief of Division, Cash Department, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)- San Jose, Antique Branch, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Resolution dated October 17, 2006 of the LBP Board of Directors is MODIFIED in that Dava is found guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Document, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. However, the imposition upon her of the penalty of dismissal from the service and the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of civil service eligibilities, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service and the letter dated July 24, 2007 denying her motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED. The accessory penalty of bar from taking future civil service examination is likewise imposed upon Dava.
Hence, the instant Petition for Review with petitioner ascribing the following assignment of errors:
PUBLIC RESPONDENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE LAND BANK:
- THAT PETITIONER BORROWED P12,000 FROM THE PICOS UNDER THE CUSTODY OF VINALEE ESPARES WITHOUT ISSUING THE REQUIRED CASH TRANSFER SLIP.
- DISMISSING THE PETITIONER FOR THE GROUND OF ACCOMMODATING THE WITHDRAWAL OF MARIFE TORDESILLAS IN THE AMOUNT OF P12,000 FROM HER OWN ACCOUNT WITHOUT HER PRESENCE.
- DISMISSING THE PETITIONER FOR ALLEGEDLY NOT HAVING PREPARED A CASH-IN-VAULT OF CIV SUMMARY FOR JULY 25, 1999 EVEN IF SHE IS OBLIGED TO SO AND FOR ALLEGEDLY REFUSING TO HEED THE REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, MS. JANICE HILAY’S REQUEST FOR THE JULY 15, 1999 CIV SUMMARY.
- ATTRIBUTING TO THE PETITIONER THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE/LOSS OF THE PHP500,000.00 FROM THE VAULT BASED ON THE ALTERATIONS/CORRECTIONS SHE HAD MADE ON THE JULY 16, 1999 PESO CIV SUMMARY.
- RELIANCE ON THE WORK BACK THAT WAS PREPARED BY CASHIER DARYL GUMBOC ON JULY 19, 1999 AFTER HAVING SEEN THE ALTERATIONS/CORRECTIONS ON THE JULY 16, 1999 PESO CIV SUMMARY THAT WAS PREPARED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE ACTUAL TURNOVER OF CASH RESPONSIBILITY/ACCOUNTABILITY ON THE NIGHT OF JULY 16, 1999.
The Ruling of the Court
We deny the petition.
The well-settled rule is that the findings or conclusions of administrative bodies are generally respected and even given finality, particularly when amply supported by substantial evidence. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise, substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of evidence. It is for the administrative agency concerned in the exercise of discretion to determine which party deserves credence on the basis of the evidence received. The rule, therefore, is that courts of justice will not generally interfere with purely administrative matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies unless there is a clear showing that the latter acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion or when they have acted in a capricious and whimsical manner such that their action may amount to an excess of jurisdiction.[15] Besides, it is incumbent on the petitioner to show that the resolution of the factual issues by the administrative agency and/or by the trial court falls under any of the exceptions.[16]
In the instant case, petitioner failed to persuade Us to rule on the exception.
Here, evidence points to petitioner’s liability. From the records of the case, it appears that petitioner initially gave a falsified CIV for July 16, 1999 which had a beginning balance of P4,138,179.42. This CIV was used by the incoming cashier Gumboc, with the assistance of Rex German and Janice Hilay, to conduct the actual cash count in the vault. Gumboc was able to reconcile the CIV (with a beginning balance of P4,138,179.42) with the actual cash in the vault. However, this CIV was brought by petitioner home and was subsequently altered. Notably, no other than the NBI detected the alteration made to the July 16, 1999 CIV. In its altered state, the beginning balance was changed from P4,138,179.42 to P4,638,179.42 which reflects the correct beginning balance as of July 16, 1999 (the ending balance of the CIV dated July 15, 1999 prepared by petitioner).
Apparently, with the alteration made, petitioner was able to manipulate the CIV for July 16, 1999 to conceal the P500,000.00 shortage of the actual cash in the vault. In the process, she shifts the blame of the lost P500,000.00 to the incoming cashier.
We agree with the findings of the CSC that the foregoing illegal acts of petitioner equate to Serious Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Document, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Violation of Office Rules and Regulations.
We further find petitioner guilty of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Grave Misconduct when petitioner borrowed P12,000.00 from the PCOS of teller Vinalee R. Espares without issuing a cash transfer slip, attempting to encash the PVAO check of Venancio Mostacho, and withdrawing from the account of Marife Tordisellas using an unsigned withdrawal slip.
It appears that petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to appear and defend her right and to introduce relevant evidence in her favor before hearing officer Jaime C. Padios. Unfortunately, petitioner failed.
The testimony of prosecution witnesses Vinalee Espares was given in a straightforward manner and contains details which could not be considered as mere afterthought. Vinalee Espares was categorical in her statement that petitioner borrowed P12,000.00 from the former’s PCOS without issuing a cash transfer slip and attempted to pay the same twice– first, with a PVAO check of Venancio Mostacho. And when the check was not encashed, petitioner withdrew P12,000.00 from the account of Marife Tordisellas using an unsigned withdrawal slip. Notably, the testimony of Vinalee Espares was corroborated in material aspects by Victor Vargas, the document examiner of LANDBANK.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior, while “gross,” has been defined as “out of all measure; beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused.”[17] On the other hand, dishonesty is incurred when an individual intentionally makes a false statement of any material fact, practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment, or promotion. It is
understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; the disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. It is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one’s ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.[18]
Petitioner’s acts constituted fraud or deceit. She deliberately flouted the rule of law, standards of behavior, and established procedures. She was also clearly dishonest when she manipulated the CIV. Moreover, petitioner used her position and even falsified official documents to commit the dishonest act to the prejudice of LANDBANK. Hence, by substantial evidence, CSC correctly held petitioner liable for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Falsification of Official Document, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.
In sum, petitioner’s acts warrant the supreme penalty of dismissal.
To end, it must be stressed that dishonesty and grave misconduct have always been and should remain anathema in the civil service. They inevitably reflect on the fitness of a civil servant to continue in office. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public’s faith and confidence in the government.[19]
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The Resolutions dated May 19, 2008 and September 26, 2008 of Civil Service Commission are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Delos Santos, E.L, Acting Executive Justice, and Maxino, P.A.A. JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 6.
[2] Id., p. 51 (Resolution No. 080921) and p. 71 (Resolution No. 081841).
[3] Id., p. 135 (ADM Case No. 00-05).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Loose money.
[6] Cash in vault.
[7] Rollo, p. 153.
[8] Id., pp. 158- 172.
[9] Id., p. 193.
[10] Id., p. 191 (Resolution No. 06-461).
[11] Id., p. 235.
[12] Id., p. 292 (Resolution No. 07-315).
[13] Id., p. 299.
[14] Id., p. 51 (Resolution No. 080921).
[15] Cayago v. Lina, G.R. No. 149539, January 19, 2005, citing Bulilan v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 130057, December 22, 1998; Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 137473, August 2, 2001 .
[16] Villaflor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997, citing Lanzona v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 66344. July 2, 1990; Medina v. Asistio, Jr., G.R. No. 75450, November 8, 1990; De los Santos vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-45027, January 27, 1992; Universal Motors v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47432, January 27, 1992; FNCB Finance v. Estavillo, G.R. No. 93394, December 20, 1990.
[17] Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-20-P (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-81-CA-P), September 9, 2005, citing Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed. [1979], p. 901.
[18] Ombudsman v. Valencia, G.R. No. 183890, April 13, 2011, citing Pleyto v. PNP-CIDG, G.R. No. 169982. November 23, 2007; Ampong v. Civil Service Commission, CSC-Regional Office No. 11., G.R. No. 167916, August 26, 2008; Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, 435 Phil. 1,12 [2002].
[19] Medina v. COA, G.R. No. 176478, February 4, 2008, citing Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, G.R. No. 155732, June 3, 2004.