This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Government Service Insurance System v. Chua,[55] an administrative complaint for grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service was filed by the GSIS against therein respondent for false alteration. Respondent allegedly “padded” the salary updates of two applicants which enabled them to receive salary loans in excess of what they were eligible to borrow. Respondent claimed good faith and lack of knowledge of any of the fraudulent scheme. The GSIS found respondent liable on the ground that the fraudulent scheme could not have been perpetrated without respondent’s participation as terminal operator. The GSIS stated that respondent’s act of encoding false information in a computer terminal to which she had sole access, and the haste in the grant and release of the loan applications, were sufficient evidence of her concerted participation in the fraudulent scheme to defraud the GSIS. The CA downgraded respondent’s offense to simple misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of reasonable office rules. On appeal, this Court ruled that the GSIS failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove that respondent was part of the fraudulent scheme. We found that it is not sufficient to hold respondent administratively liable on the mere fact that she alone – being the owner of the computer terminal used and having access to the operator’s code to effect the alteration – could have done the encoding of the false salary updates. We further explained, viz.: x x x As the records show, the respondent did not deny that she might have made the false salary updates. What she contests is the sufficing circumstance as substantial evidence to support her participation in the fraudulent scheme against the GSIS. | |||||
|
2014-06-10 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In GSIS v. Chua,[87] the GSIS dismissed Heidi R. Chua for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service. The Civil Service Commission affirmed the GSIS, but the Court of Appeals, while affirming the findings of the Commission, modified the penalty to simple misconduct. The GSIS was then allowed to bring an appeal of the modification of the penalty with this court. | |||||