DISHONESTY

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190524_2014.html

ishonesty is a serious offense, indeed so grave that it is punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292.

Finally, petitioner points out that public office is a public trust; a person aspiring for public office must observe honesty, "candor, and faithful compliance with the law."26 Dishonesty remains the same whether it is committed in relation to the public official’s duties or in the course of his private dealings: it reflects on his "character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity."27

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_177531_2009.html

Further, respondent’s culpability for dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service are supported by substantial evidence. An examination of her 2002 and 1987 Personal Data Sheets (PDS)16 reveals that her signatures and pictures thereon are markedly different from those in her Application Form (AF)17 and the Picture Seat Plan (PSP) for the October 1994 Professional Board Examination for Teachers (PBET).18 There was likewise a discrepancy between respondent’s date of birth, which appeared on her 2002 PDS (December 15, 1965), and the birth date indicated in her AF and PSP (December 15, 1958). Respondent failed to offer a reasonable explanation for this. We find incredible respondent’s unsubstantiated claim that she used to believe her birth year to be 1958 but was later informed by persons who knew the circumstances of her birth that she was purportedly born in 1965. If respondent’s defenses were true,

then she should have produced her birth records and the testimonial or expert evidence that allegedly could exculpate her. Unfortunately, she did not present such evidence.

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

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_115942_1995.html

II DISHONESTY

The Commission finds Rubenecia liable. He was charged for misrepresenting that he was on "Official Travel" to Baguio City to attend a three-week seminar and making it appear in his CSC Form No. 7 for the month of October 1988 that the has a perfect attendance for that month. Rubenecia in order to rebut the same simply reiterated previous allegation that he attended the SEDP Training in Baguio City during the questioned months without even an attempt on his part to adduce evidence documentary or testimonial that would attest to the truth of his allegation that he was indeed in Baguio during those weeks for training purposes. A mere allegation cannot obviously prevail over a more direct and positive statement of Celedonio Layon, School Division Superintendent, Division of Northern Samar, when the latter certified that he had no official knowledge of the alleged "official travel" of Rubenecia. Moreover, verification with the Bureau of Secondary Schools reveals that no training seminar for school principal was conducted by DECS during that time. It was also proven by records that he caused one Mrs. Cecilia vestra to render service as Secondary School Teacher from January 19, 1990 to August 30, 1991 without any duly issued appointment by the appointing authority.

CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE

In Avenido v. Civil Service Commission, 22 we explained that acts may constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/155732.htm

Respondent should be reminded that 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.[36] This 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. In addition, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713) enunciates the State Policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service.

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. [37] 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 publics faith and confidence in the government.