Public trust

Ian Alfredo Magno

QUITE too often, we hear or read – via television, radio or newsprint – about technical terminologies such as grave misconduct and dishonesty in the government service, among others.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.

Meanwhile, dishonesty is not simply bad judgment or negligence. It implies 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; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.

Under Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the administrative offenses of grave misconduct and gross dishonesty are meted with the penalty of dismissal from the service – even if committed for the first time.  And it comes with the forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave benefits), and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service.  Nevertheless, when dishonesty is less serious, it is punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one-year suspension for the first offense; and dismissal from service for the second offense.

Such a rather stern policy is rooted in the constitutional precept that public office is a public trust.  Section 1, Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) of the 1987 Constitution provides thus:

“Section 1. Public 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.”

In principle, therefore, a stricter measure of decency is required of government employees within and without the office premises, whether during or beyond the official hours of duty. Hence, for government personnel charged with administrative suits, it would usually be futile to aver – as a matter of defense – that the act charged was done outside the scope of his/her work and beyond the confines or past the working hours of his/her office.

This was fairly illustrated in the case of Miranda vs. Fernandez AM No. P-14-3270 dated Nov.18, 2014.  Fernandez was a government employee charged with grave misconduct and dishonesty.  In a loan transaction, Fernandez surrendered her ATM card to her creditors to allow the latter to withdraw her payments from her salary.  However, when the payments became due, the complainant could not withdraw from the respondent’s account because the ATM machine “swallowed” and retained the ATM card. Earlier, Fernandez made false representations to the LBP declaring that she lost her ATM card so she could directly withdraw her salary over the bank’s counter and cause the issuance of a new ATM card in her favor.

Clearly, Fernandez’s actuations were not related to the actual performance of her official duty as a government employee. Nevertheless, she was adjudged guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty by the Supreme Court, which said:

“The respondent’s actions, although arising from a private transaction, stained the image of her public office… the respondent is expected to be a model of fairness and honesty not only in all her official conduct but also in her personal actuations, involving business and commercial transactions.”

The dispositive portion of the Supreme Court’s decision reads thus:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent x x x x x GUILTY of willful failure to pay just debts, gross misconduct and insubordination, and dishonesty, and accordingly orders her DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leaves. She is further disqualified from holding any position in the government or in any government-owned or controlled corporation.

“This is without prejudice to any criminal action which the complainant may pursue against the respondent.”

(Lawyer Ian Alfredo T. Magno is based in Cagayan de Oro. E-mail: ianalfredom@gmail.com)