I distinctly remember a “hypothetical discussion” I had with my former legal consultant about two to three years ago when he asked me whether there is “dishonesty” in a case where the respondent supposedly signs a document “without authority” and/or “without any legal basis” as the attached documents are either inexistent or falsified.
I asked our lawyer in his “hypothetical case” as to whether there is evidence to establish respondent’s intent to lie, cheat, defraud or steal (and whether there is evidence to prove that it is respondent who falsified the attached documents or the respondent knows that the said documents are falsified).
Our lawyer said “none” though there is evidence that indeed the documents are falsified. Without discussing the other offenses with which the respondent maybe charged (as we are only discussing the offense of dishonesty at that time), I then told our lawyer, “notwithstanding the fact that the documents are indeed falsified, so long as there is no evidence to establish respondent’s intent to lie, cheat, defraud or steal and there is no evidence to prove that it is respondent who falsified the attached documents or the respondent knows that the said documents are falsified—there is no offense of dishonesty.”
I then discussed with our legal consultant the concept of the offense of dishonesty.
Citing the Sourcebook on Administrative Offenses in the Civil Service published by the Civil Service Commission and some actual Supreme Court decided cases as my references, I cited the following jurisprudence on “Dishonesty”:
- Dishonesty is defined as “intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion.” It is also understood to imply 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.”
- Thus, dishonesty, like bad faith, is not simply bad judgment or negligence. Dishonesty is a question of intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only on the facts or circumstances which gave rise to the act committed, but also the state of mind at the time the offense is committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment. (Wooden v. CSC, G.R. 152884, September 30, 2005; Millena v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 127797, January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 126).
In Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution 06-0538, issued on April 4, 2006, dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray and intent to violate the truth.
Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) promulgated on November 8, 2011, by the CSC, administrative offenses are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
Thus, under Section 46, Rule 10 of RRACCS, “serious dishonesty” is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service. “less serious dishonesty,” while considered also as a grave offense, is punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense. Finally, “simple dishonesty” is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense; six months and one day to one year for the second offense; and dismissal for the third offense. This column should not be taken as a legal advice applicable to any case as each case is unique and should be construed in light of the attending circumstances surrounding such particular case.
Lawyer Toni Umali is the current assistant secretary for Legal and Legislative Affairs of the DepEd. He is licensed to practice law not only in the Philippines, but also in the state of California and some federal courts in the United States after passing the California State Bar Examinations in 2004. He has served as a legal consultant to several legislators and local chief executives. As education assistant secretary, he was instrumental in the passage of the K to 12 law and the issuance of its implementing rules and regulations. He is also the alternate spokesman of the DepEd.
4 comments
Good to know, Asec. Thank you for these informative articles.
You’re welcome Mr Rudy Romano. God bless you and your family.
CAN I FILE A CASE TO THE G.A.MANAGER THAT SHE MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT SO THAT MY JOB PROMOTION WILL BE CANCELLED?
WHAT ARE POSSIBLE CHARGES TO A SHERIFF THAT SERVES DECISION COPIES TO OTHER PEOPLE WHICH WERE NOT CONCERNED IN THE CASE, CREATING FIRE TO PUBLIC AND PROPERTY SAFETY? SERVING COPIES DURING OFF DUTY HOURS, SHOWS BIAS AND PARTISANSHIP TO THE OTHER PARTY.