Lawyerly

AM No. CA-15-31-P

2015-06-16

COMMITTEE ON SECURITY v. REYNALDO V. DIANCO - CHIEF SECURITY

PER CURIAM

Although Sorianosos has been in the service for twenty (20) years, that may not be considered as a mitigating circumstance in his favor. Length of service can either be a mitigating or an aggravating circumstance depending on the facts of each case. It is usually considered as an aggravating circumstance when the offense committed is serious or grave[91] or if length of service is a factor that facilitates the commission of the offense.[92] In the present case, the offense of less serious dishonesty is considered as a grave offense;[93] for which reason, Sorianosos’s length of service should be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

AM No. CA-15-31-P

2015-06-16

COMMITTEE ON SECURITY v. REYNALDO V. DIANCO - CHIEF SECURITY

PER CURIAM

The respondents are reminded that [“the Constitution mandates that a public office is a public trust and public officers 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. These constitutionally enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should] [be read and implemented as working standards by everyone in the public service.”][102]

AM No. MTJ-13-1823

2014-03-19

P & SR. INSP. TEDDY M. ROSQUETA v. JUDGE JONATHAN A. ASUNCION

BERSAMIN, J.

The objective of disciplining an officer or employee is not the punishment of the officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the Government.[29] Judge Asuncion is reminded, therefore, that "the Constitution stresses that a public office is a public trust and public officers 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. These constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as working standards by all in the public service."[30]

AM No. P-13-3171

2014-01-28

RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF CESAR E. SALES

PER CURIAM

In the present case, we do not find any circumstance that would mitigate Sales' liability. True, Sales has been in the Judiciary for almost 17 years, but length of service, as a factor in determining the imposable penalty in administrative cases, is a double-edged sword.[13] It is not a circumstance that, once invoked, will automatically be considered as a mitigating in favor of the party invoking it.[14] While it can sometimes help mitigate the penalty, it can also justify a more serious sanction.[15] Length of service, in other words, is an alternative circumstance. This is clear from Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which amended the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations dated 27 December 1991. The title and opening paragraph of Section 53 provides that the attendant circumstances enumerated therein may either be considered as mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances by the disciplining body.

GR No. 179054

2012-09-05

BAGONG KAPISANAN SA PUNTA TENEMENT v. AZER E. DOLOT

MENDOZA, J.

l. Other analogous circumstances In the case of Civil Service Commission v. Delia Cortez,[29] it was written: Under the Civil Service Law and its implementing rules, dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service. Thus, as provided by law, there is no other penalty that should be imposed on respondent than the penalty of dismissal.

AM No. P-06-2186

2012-07-03

FILOMENA B. CONSOLACION v. LYDIA S. GAMBITO

PER CURIAM

Indeed, Gambito's unauthorized transactions with Villamanca and Erum constitute conduct grossly prejudicial to the interest of the service. Under the Civil Service Law and its implementing rules, dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service.[14]

GR No. 180141

2011-05-31

RIMANDO A. GANNAPAO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Where the government employee concerned took advantage of long years of service and position in public office, length of service may not be considered in lowering the penalty. This Court has invariably taken this circumstance against the respondent public officer or employee in administrative cases involving serious offenses, even if it was the first time said public officer or employee was administratively charged. Thus, we held in Civil Service Commission v. Cortez[49]: Petitioner CSC is correct that length of service should be taken against the respondent. Length of service is not a magic word that, once invoked, will automatically be considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party invoking it. Length of service can either be a mitigating or aggravating circumstance depending on the factual milieu of each case. Length of service, in other words, is an alternative circumstance. That this is so is clear in Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which amended the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations dated 27 December 1991. x x x

GR No. 191218

2011-05-30

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ARWIN T. MAYORDOMO

MENDOZA, J.

As a final word, the Court makes clear that when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of that officer or employee, but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.[47] The respondent is reminded that "the Constitution stresses that a public office is a public trust and public officers 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. These constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as working standards by all in the public service."[48]

GR No. 189479

2011-04-12

JEROME JAPSON v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

NACHURA, J.

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.[29]

GR No. 177531

2009-09-10

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. FATIMA A. MACUD

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

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.[20]

GR NO. 148600

2009-07-07

ATTY. EMMANUEL PONTEJOS v. ANIANO A DESIERTO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

To end, it must be stressed that grave misconduct has always been and should remain anathema in the civil service. It inevitably reflects 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.[20]

GR No. 176478

2008-02-04

LORNA A. MEDINA v. COA

TINGA, J,

Jurisprudence is replete with cases declaring that a grave offense cannot be mitigated by the fact that the accused is a first time offender or by the length of service of the accused. In Civil Service Commission v. Cortez,[33] the Court held as follows:The gravity of the offense committed is also the reason why we cannot consider the "first offense" circumstance invoked by respondent. In several cases, we imposed the heavier penalty of dismissal or a fine of more than P20,000.00, considering the gravity of the offense committed, even if the offense charged was respondent's first offense. Thus, in the present case, even though the offense respondent was found guilty of was her first offense, the gravity thereof outweighs the fact that it was her first offense.[34]

GR NO. 155749

2007-02-08

ERLINDA F. SANTOS v. MA. CAREST A. RASALAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

One final word. The law does not tolerate misconduct by a civil servant. Petitioner's acts in question undoubtedly violate the norm of decency and diminish or tend to diminish the people's respect for those in the government service. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object is the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government. [15]

GR NO. 169029

2006-08-22

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROGELIO Q. TONGSON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

As a final note, let it be emphasized that 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.[62]

AM NO. 2005-01-SC

2005-06-08

CONCERNED EMPLOYEE v. ROBERTO VALENTIN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In several cases, we refrained from imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service where the erring employee has not been previously charged with an administrative offense.[5] In fact, in several cases[6] taking into consideration the presence of mitigating circumstances, we lowered the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent. We believe that a penalty of suspension for six (6) months without pay and with warning is in order.

GR NO. 153894

2005-02-16

ALEX A. BITENG v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

PANGANIBAN, J.

Public office is a public trust. Government officials and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.[17] That these principles are working standards for all public servants has been ruled by this Court in Civil Service Commission v. Cortez,[18] from which we quote:"x x x. Th[ese] constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as working standards by all in the public service.

AM NO. P-97-1258

2005-01-31

OCA v. CLERK OF COURT ERMELINA C. BERNARDINO

PER CURIAM

The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, the courts below not excepted, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity for no less than the Constitution mandates that a public office is a public trust and 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.[56]

	AM No. CA-15-31-P 2015-06-16	COMMITTEE ON SECURITY v. REYNALDO V. DIANCO - CHIEF SECURITY PER CURIAM
Although Sorianosos has been in the service for twenty (20) years, that may not be considered as a mitigating circumstance in his favor. Length of service can either be a mitigating or an aggravating circumstance depending on the facts of each case. It is usually considered as an aggravating circumstance when the offense committed is serious or grave[91] or if length of service is a factor that facilitates the commission of the offense.[92] In the present case, the offense of less serious dishonesty is considered as a grave offense;[93] for which reason, Sorianosos’s length of service should be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
	AM No. CA-15-31-P 2015-06-16	COMMITTEE ON SECURITY v. REYNALDO V. DIANCO - CHIEF SECURITY PER CURIAM
The respondents are reminded that [“the Constitution mandates that a public office is a public trust and public officers 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. These constitutionally enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should] [be read and implemented as working standards by everyone in the public service.”][102]
	AM No. MTJ-13-1823 2014-03-19	P & SR. INSP. TEDDY M. ROSQUETA v. JUDGE JONATHAN A. ASUNCION BERSAMIN, J.
The objective of disciplining an officer or employee is not the punishment of the officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the Government.[29] Judge Asuncion is reminded, therefore, that "the Constitution stresses that a public office is a public trust and public officers 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. These constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as working standards by all in the public service."[30]
	AM No. P-13-3171 2014-01-28	RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF CESAR E. SALES PER CURIAM
In the present case, we do not find any circumstance that would mitigate Sales' liability. True, Sales has been in the Judiciary for almost 17 years, but length of service, as a factor in determining the imposable penalty in administrative cases, is a double-edged sword.[13] It is not a circumstance that, once invoked, will automatically be considered as a mitigating in favor of the party invoking it.[14] While it can sometimes help mitigate the penalty, it can also justify a more serious sanction.[15] Length of service, in other words, is an alternative circumstance. This is clear from Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which amended the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations dated 27 December 1991. The title and opening paragraph of Section 53 provides that the attendant circumstances enumerated therein may either be considered as mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances by the disciplining body.
	GR No. 179054 2012-09-05	BAGONG KAPISANAN SA PUNTA TENEMENT v. AZER E. DOLOT MENDOZA, J.
l. Other analogous circumstances In the case of Civil Service Commission v. Delia Cortez,[29] it was written: Under the Civil Service Law and its implementing rules, dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service. Thus, as provided by law, there is no other penalty that should be imposed on respondent than the penalty of dismissal.
	AM No. P-06-2186 2012-07-03	FILOMENA B. CONSOLACION v. LYDIA S. GAMBITO PER CURIAM
Indeed, Gambito's unauthorized transactions with Villamanca and Erum constitute conduct grossly prejudicial to the interest of the service. Under the Civil Service Law and its implementing rules, dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service.[14]
	GR No. 180141 2011-05-31	RIMANDO A. GANNAPAO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Where the government employee concerned took advantage of long years of service and position in public office, length of service may not be considered in lowering the penalty. This Court has invariably taken this circumstance against the respondent public officer or employee in administrative cases involving serious offenses, even if it was the first time said public officer or employee was administratively charged. Thus, we held in Civil Service Commission v. Cortez[49]: Petitioner CSC is correct that length of service should be taken against the respondent. Length of service is not a magic word that, once invoked, will automatically be considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party invoking it. Length of service can either be a mitigating or aggravating circumstance depending on the factual milieu of each case. Length of service, in other words, is an alternative circumstance. That this is so is clear in Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which amended the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations dated 27 December 1991. x x x
	GR No. 191218 2011-05-30	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ARWIN T. MAYORDOMO MENDOZA, J.
As a final word, the Court makes clear that when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of that officer or employee, but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.[47] The respondent is reminded that "the Constitution stresses that a public office is a public trust and public officers 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. These constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as working standards by all in the public service."[48]
	GR No. 189479 2011-04-12	JEROME JAPSON v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NACHURA, J.
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.[29]
	GR No. 177531 2009-09-10	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. FATIMA A. MACUD LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
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.[20]
	GR NO. 148600 2009-07-07	ATTY. EMMANUEL PONTEJOS v. ANIANO A DESIERTO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
To end, it must be stressed that grave misconduct has always been and should remain anathema in the civil service. It inevitably reflects 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.[20]
	GR No. 176478 2008-02-04	LORNA A. MEDINA v. COA TINGA, J,
Jurisprudence is replete with cases declaring that a grave offense cannot be mitigated by the fact that the accused is a first time offender or by the length of service of the accused. In Civil Service Commission v. Cortez,[33] the Court held as follows:The gravity of the offense committed is also the reason why we cannot consider the "first offense" circumstance invoked by respondent. In several cases, we imposed the heavier penalty of dismissal or a fine of more than P20,000.00, considering the gravity of the offense committed, even if the offense charged was respondent's first offense. Thus, in the present case, even though the offense respondent was found guilty of was her first offense, the gravity thereof outweighs the fact that it was her first offense.[34]
	GR NO. 155749 2007-02-08	ERLINDA F. SANTOS v. MA. CAREST A. RASALAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
One final word. The law does not tolerate misconduct by a civil servant. Petitioner's acts in question undoubtedly violate the norm of decency and diminish or tend to diminish the people's respect for those in the government service. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object is the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government. [15]
	GR NO. 169029 2006-08-22	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROGELIO Q. TONGSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
As a final note, let it be emphasized that 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.[62]
	AM NO. 2005-01-SC 2005-06-08	CONCERNED EMPLOYEE v. ROBERTO VALENTIN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In several cases, we refrained from imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service where the erring employee has not been previously charged with an administrative offense.[5] In fact, in several cases[6] taking into consideration the presence of mitigating circumstances, we lowered the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent. We believe that a penalty of suspension for six (6) months without pay and with warning is in order.
	GR NO. 153894 2005-02-16	ALEX A. BITENG v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR PANGANIBAN, J.
Public office is a public trust. Government officials and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.[17] That these principles are working standards for all public servants has been ruled by this Court in Civil Service Commission v. Cortez,[18] from which we quote:"x x x. Th[ese] constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as working standards by all in the public service.
	AM NO. P-97-1258 2005-01-31	OCA v. CLERK OF COURT ERMELINA C. BERNARDINO PER CURIAM
The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, the courts below not excepted, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity for no less than the Constitution mandates that a public office is a public trust and 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.[56]

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. DELIA T. CORTEZ