Civil Service Commission vs. Cortez

Length of service in the government is an alternative circumstance that may be considered either mitigating or aggravating depending on the factual milieu of each case, and it cannot mitigate the penalty for grave offenses like dishonesty and grave misconduct where the employee's length of service helped in the commission of the offense. The gravity of the offense committed outweighs the fact that the offense charged was the respondent's first offense, and dismissal from the service is the proper penalty for grave offenses under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

Respondent Delia T. Cortez was the Chief Personnel Specialist of the Examination and Placement Services Division (EPSD) of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSRO) No. X in Cagayan de Oro City. She was formally charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service under Resolution No. 99-0039 of the CSC dated January 7, 1999. The charges arose from allegations that she sold recycled examination fee stamps to applicants for the Career Service Professional Examination. The CSC is the constitutional body mandated to preserve and safeguard the integrity of the civil service, and public officers and employees are constitutionally required to serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

Respondent Delia T. Cortez was the Chief Personnel Specialist of the Examination and Placement Services Division (EPSD) of the Civil Service Regional Office (CSRO) No. X in Cagayan de Oro City. On June 26, 1998, at about 3 p.m., two teenagers, June Grace Abina and Rubielyn Ofredo, appeared at the CSRO No. X to file application forms for the Career Service Professional Examination for their aunt and their aunt's co-employees. They proceeded to the Cashier's Office to purchase the required examination fee stamps, but a personnel from the Cashier's Office told them to first proceed to the EPSD for approval of the application forms.

When Abina and Ofredo presented the application forms at the EPSD, respondent Cortez pasted a stamp worth ₱150.00 on each of the application forms and asked them for the corresponding payment. Thereafter, Abina and Ofredo returned to the Cashier's Office to inquire about other fees. The Cashier examined the application forms and noted that the serial numbers of the stamps did not correspond with the serial numbers of the stamps issued to that Office. This prompted the cashier, accompanied by Abina and Ofredo, to proceed to the EPSD and confront respondent Cortez on the unauthorized selling of stamps. Respondent immediately removed the stamps from the application forms, kept them, and brought out the money which Abina and Ofredo had given her, handing it to the Cashier who subsequently issued them another set of stamps. The stamps respondent sold bore serial numbers 0216430, 0216432, 0216441, and 0116443, which were issued to the CSRO No. X in 1995 for the Professional Board Examination for Teachers (PBET).

Respondent filed an answer vehemently denying the charges. She averred that the application forms were already pasted with stamps when presented to her, and that she removed the stamps to show them to the applicants when they personally came to file their application forms. She denied collecting money for the stamps and denied any confrontation with the cashier, branding the charges as "brazen lies and concoctions" of people determined to destroy her more than twenty years of service.

During the formal investigation, Abina and Ofredo identified and affirmed their joint-affidavit, narrating that respondent pasted examination fee stamps on the four application forms, took their money (₱900), and gave them their change (₱300). Eva S. Alcalde, clerk of CSRO No. X, affirmed that she told Abina and Ofredo to first go to the EPSD for approval before she could issue stamps, and that when they returned, the application forms were already pasted with stamps. Acting Cashier Angeline P. Lim affirmed that the serial numbers of the stamps did not correspond with those the Cashier's Office was authorized to issue for that day, and that a confrontation took place between her and respondent. Lim testified that respondent feigned innocence, but after Lim copied the serial numbers, respondent detached the stamps and went inside the Records Section, where she handed Lim ₱600, which Lim did not accept. Lim later discovered that the stamps were among a batch issued in 1995 and sold under O.R. No. 1332901 for the Professional Board Examination for Teachers. Lim further testified that respondent later approached her, saying someone asked her to sell the recycled stamps, and that respondent suggested the matter should not reach top management.

The CSC concluded that the version of the complainants was more credible, noting that Abina and Ofredo categorically pointed to respondent as the source of the questionable stamps and that their testimonies were corroborated by Alcalde and Lim. The CSC ruled respondent guilty of illegally selling recycled stamps for her own financial gain and ordered her dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from reemployment. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which granted her petition and modified the penalty to forced resignation, considering her twenty-one years of service, that it was her first offense, and that no damage was sustained by the Government.

• Gravity of the Offense: Petitioner contended that respondent is not entitled to any penalty lesser than dismissal considering the gravity of her offense, as dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service are all grave offenses punishable by dismissal under Section 52 in relation to Section 55 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Petitioner argued that the mitigating circumstances of length of service and "first offense" cannot be considered since dismissal is an indivisible penalty, and that if length of service is to be considered at all, it should be taken against respondent because despite her long service, she abused the government's trust by taking advantage of her position.
• Propriety of Forced Resignation: Petitioner asserted that the Court of Appeals erred in imposing the penalty of forced resignation since it is not provided under the Administrative Code of 1987, and that forced resignation without forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from reemployment for grave offenses would effectively reward an erring employee instead of punishing her.

• Proportionality of Penalty: Respondent maintained that dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits is not commensurate with the offense committed, and that considering the mitigating circumstances of length of service and first offense, the lesser penalty of forced resignation with entitlement to all benefits under the law is the proper penalty.
• Absence of Damage: Respondent emphasized that the amount involved was only ₱600, which she returned to the complainants, and since the complainants thereafter bought examination fee stamps at the Cashier's Office using the money returned to them, no damage was caused to the Government.
• Mitigating Circumstances as a Matter of Right: Respondent claimed that her case warrants the appreciation of the mitigating circumstances of length of service and "first offense," not because she deserves sympathy or pity, but because she is entitled to them as a matter of right.

• Propriety of the Penalty of Dismissal: Whether the penalty of dismissal meted out to respondent is too harsh taking into consideration her being a first-time offender and her over twenty-one years in government service.

• Propriety of the Penalty of Dismissal: No. The penalty of dismissal is proper and respondent is not entitled to a lower penalty. 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, and the mitigating circumstances invoked by respondent do not apply given the gravity of the offense and the fact that her length of service helped in its commission.

• Propriety of the Penalty of Dismissal: The Court ruled in favor of petitioner CSC. 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. While Section 54 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service allows the consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the imposition of penalties, and jurisprudence has applied this rule to lower the penalty of dismissal in some cases, respondent is not entitled to a lower penalty under the facts of this case.

The Court held that length of service is not a magic word that, once invoked, will automatically be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Length of service is an alternative circumstance that can either be mitigating or aggravating depending on the factual milieu of each case, as provided in Section 53 of the Uniform Rules. In this case, length of service was taken against respondent because it was her length of service in the CSC that helped her in the commission of the offense. Respondent served in the CSC for twenty-one years, the last eight years as Chief of the EPSD, a position she earned because of her length of service. As Chief of the EPSD, she had access to previously processed and approved application forms from which she detached the stamps and later sold to new civil service examination applicants. The stamps she was caught selling were issued in 1995, when respondent was already serving as chief of the EPSD.

The Court also held that the gravity of the offense is the reason why the "first offense" circumstance cannot be considered in respondent's favor. Respondent's act irreparably tarnished the integrity of the CSC, the body mandated by the Constitution to preserve and safeguard the integrity of the civil service. As a senior officer, respondent flagrantly and shamelessly violated the law by selling used examination fee stamps for her own financial gain, right in her own office and during office hours. Such conduct seriously undermined the integrity of the CSC, and respondent did not deserve to stay in the agency and in the government service.

The Court rejected respondent's argument that no damage was caused to the Government because she returned the money and the complainants later paid the Cashier's Office. The Court stated that these arguments show respondent's distorted sense of values, as it seems all right for respondent to steal from the government as long as it does not involve millions of pesos. The Court reminded respondent that a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, as 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. The Court stressed that dishonesty and grave misconduct have always been and should remain anathema in the civil service, as they inevitably reflect on the fitness of a civil servant to continue in office.

• Length of Service as an Alternative Circumstance — Length of service in the government is an alternative circumstance that may be considered either mitigating or aggravating depending on the factual milieu of each case, as provided in Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. The Court applied this doctrine by taking length of service against respondent because it was her length of service in the CSC that helped her in the commission of the offense, having earned the position of Chief of the EPSD through her long service and having access to previously processed application forms from which she detached the stamps.

• Gravity of the Offense Outweighs First Offense — The gravity of the offense committed outweighs the fact that the offense charged was the respondent's first offense. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that 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, because respondent's act irreparably tarnished the integrity of the CSC.

• 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, as mandated by Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. The Court applied this doctrine by reminding respondent that a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, and that dishonesty and grave misconduct inevitably reflect on the fitness of a civil servant to continue in office.

• "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." — This passage articulates the Court's doctrine that length of service is an alternative circumstance, not automatically mitigating, and is central to the Court's reasoning for taking length of service against respondent.

• "Respondent's length of service in the CSC, therefore, clearly helped her in the commission of the offense." — This passage states the Court's application of the length of service doctrine to the facts, finding that respondent's position and tenure enabled her to commit the offense.

• "These arguments show respondent's distorted sense of values. It seems all right for respondent to steal from the government as long as it does not involve millions of pesos." — This passage reflects the Court's rejection of respondent's argument that no damage was caused to the Government because the amount involved was only ₱600, emphasizing the principle that the amount stolen does not diminish the gravity of the offense.

• "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." — This passage articulates the purpose of administrative discipline, which the Court cited in affirming the penalty of dismissal for grave offenses in the civil service.

• University of the Philippines vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 89454, April 20, 1992, 208 SCRA 174 — Followed; the Court cited this case for the principle that length of service cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance when it was the employee's length of service that earned her the position and trust through which she committed the offense.

• Yuson vs. Noel, A.M. No. RTJ-91-762, October 23, 1993, 227 SCRA 1 — Followed; the Court cited this case for the principle that the mere length of service cannot mitigate the gravity of the offense or the penalty deserved, especially where integrity is an indispensable credential.

• Concerned Employee vs. Nuestro, A.M. No. P-02-1629, September 11, 2002 — Followed; the Court cited this case for the principle that dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the court system, and that length of service does not warrant a lower penalty where the offense is grave.

• Marasigan vs. Buena, 348 Phil. 1 (1998) — Distinguished; the Court cited this case as one where the penalty of dismissal was lowered to forced resignation due to mitigating circumstances, but distinguished it from the present case because respondent here did not demonstrate repentance, restitution, or sincere effort to reform.

• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ibay, A.M. No. P-02-1649, November 29, 2002 — Distinguished; the Court cited this case as one where the penalty was reduced to suspension, but distinguished it from the present case where the gravity of the offense and abuse of position warranted dismissal.

• Monsanto vs. Palarca, 211 Phil. 237 (1983) — Followed; the Court cited this case for the principle that the gravity of the offense can warrant a heavier penalty even if the offense charged was the respondent's first offense.

• Cajot vs. Cledera, A.M. No. P-98-1262, February 12, 1998, 286 SCRA 238 — Followed; the Court cited this case for the principle that dismissal is warranted for grave offenses even on first commission.

• Nera vs. Garcia, 106 Phil. 1031 (1960) — Followed; the Court cited this case for the principle that dishonesty and grave misconduct reflect on the fitness of a civil servant to continue in office.

• Bautista vs. Negado, 108 Phil. 283 (1960) — Followed; the Court cited this case for the principle that the object of administrative discipline is the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.

• Section 52, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Identifies dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service as grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service; applied to respondent's offenses.

• Section 53, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Provides that mitigating, aggravating, and alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered in the determination of penalties, and enumerates length of service in the government as an alternative circumstance; applied to determine that length of service was taken against respondent.

• Section 54, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Provides the manner of imposition of penalties, including the consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances; applied to determine the proper penalty for respondent's offenses.

• Section 55, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Provides that if a respondent is found guilty of two or more charges, the penalty to be imposed shall be that corresponding to the most serious charge, with the rest considered as aggravating circumstances; applied to determine that dismissal is the imposable penalty.

• Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution — Mandates that public office is a public trust and public officers and employees must serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; applied to remind respondent of her duty as a public servant.

• Section 3, Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution — Mandates the Civil Service Commission to preserve and safeguard the integrity of the civil service; applied to emphasize that respondent's act irreparably tarnished the integrity of the CSC.

• R.A. No. 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees — Enunciates the State Policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service; applied to emphasize the standards expected of public servants.

Davide, Jr., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concurred.