Domingo vs. Civil Service Commission and Manalo

Attendance at a seminar during approved leave of absence, without prior office authorization, does not constitute grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service where no specific law or administrative rule prohibits such activity, no corruption or intent to defraud is proven, and the act does not tarnish the image of the public office. Grave misconduct requires the additional elements of corruption, clear willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules; serious dishonesty requires intent to deceive or defraud and concealment of truth relevant to one's office; and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service requires an act that tarnishes the image and integrity of the public office.

Petitioner Estrella M. Domingo served as Chief Archivist of the Archives Preservation Division of the National Archives of the Philippines (NAP). In February 2014, the City of Bacoor requested the NAP to provide resource speakers for a records management seminar. Respondent Victorino Mapa Manalo, NAP Executive Director, initially approved the participation of four resource persons, including the petitioner, but subsequently instructed that all in-house trainings be postponed until after April 1, 2014. Josephine F. Austria, then Chief of the NAP's Training and Information Division, failed to return the revised documents to respondent Manalo, leaving the request unacted upon. In April 2014, the petitioner received a personal invitation from the Mayor of Bacoor to serve as resource speaker for a rescheduled seminar on April 28-29, 2014, at Tagaytay City, which coincided with her previously filed leave of absence.

• The Initial Request and Administrative Delay: On February 24, 2014, the Mayor of Bacoor City requested the NAP to provide resource speakers for a Basic Records Management Seminar Workshop and Paper Preservation Training scheduled for March 24-28, 2014. Respondent Manalo initially confirmed the availability of four resource persons, including the petitioner, to Austria, Chief of the NAP's Training and Information Division. However, Manalo subsequently annotated on the Document Endorsement Form an instruction putting all in-house trainings on hold until after April 1, 2014, and returned the documents to Austria for schedule revision. Austria failed to endorse the revised documents back to Manalo; the documents remained in her custody, leaving Bacoor City's request unprocessed.
• Personal Invitation and Leave Application: On April 10, 2014, petitioner applied for leave of absence for April 28-29, 2014. On April 26, 2014, she personally received a letter dated April 22, 2014 from Mayor Revilla inviting her to serve as resource speaker for the City of Bacoor's Basic Records Management Seminar on April 28-29, 2014 at Tagaytay City, stated to be in lieu of the earlier request sent to the NAP. On April 23, 2014, Bacoor City sent an email to the NAP requesting its official seal for use at the seminar.
• The Seminar and Materials: Petitioner, Austria, and Lara Marie R. Abejuela attended the April 28-29, 2014 seminar. Petitioner acted as resource speaker for Basic Records Management, and NAP handouts were presented and disseminated. Petitioner instructed Abejuela not to inform the NAP about the seminar.
• Administrative Proceedings: On May 19, 2014, Manalo issued a show cause memorandum regarding the unapproved seminar and unauthorized use of NAP materials. Petitioner admitted in her reply that she acted as resource person without office approval, but claimed she acted in her private capacity while on approved leave, was a resident of Bacoor City, and had no certain knowledge of the prior request's status, having been informed only by Austria that a request was pending Manalo's approval. On August 20, 2014, formal charges were filed against petitioner for serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of public service. Austria and Abejuela were also charged, but their charges were mooted by retirement and resignation, respectively.

• Absence of Prohibited Act: Petitioner maintained that she honestly believed in good faith that no prior approval was necessary as the Mayor invited her in her personal capacity, and she was on approved leave during the seminar dates. She argued that no specific law or rule prohibits attendance at seminars during personal leave.
• Lack of Knowledge of Prior Request: She argued that she had no personal knowledge of the history of the February 2014 request or the correspondence between the NAP and Bacoor City, having been informed only by Austria that a request was pending approval by respondent Manalo.
• Customary Practice: She pointed to the NAP's customary practice of allowing her to conduct seminars without office approval due to exigency of service.
• Absence of Elements of Grave Offenses: She contended that her acts lacked the corruption, clear willful intent, or flagrant disregard required for grave misconduct; the concealment of truth necessary for serious dishonesty; and the tarnishing of the NAP's image required for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Disproportionate Penalty: She argued that dismissal was too harsh considering her 36-year unblemished record in government service.

• Admission of Unauthorized Activity: The CSC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that petitioner's admission in her reply to the show cause memorandum that she acted as resource person without prior office approval constituted flagrant disregard of NAP rules and willful defiance amounting to grave misconduct.
• Serious Dishonesty: Respondent argued that petitioner committed serious dishonesty by making it appear she had authority to represent the NAP, instructing Abejuela not to inform the NAP about the seminar, and filing leave for those dates to conceal her participation.
• Conduct Prejudicial to the Service: As Chief Archivist, petitioner was expected to exhibit honesty and exemplary conduct, which she failed to uphold, constituting conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Substantial Evidence: The CSC maintained that substantial evidence supported petitioner's guilt for all charges and that the penalty of dismissal was proper.

• Grave Misconduct: Whether petitioner is liable for grave misconduct for attending a seminar as resource speaker without prior office approval while on approved leave.
• Serious Dishonesty: Whether petitioner committed serious dishonesty by allegedly misrepresenting her authority and concealing her participation in the seminar.
• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: Whether petitioner's acts constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

• Grave Misconduct: Grave misconduct was not established because the elements of corruption, clear willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules were absent. Petitioner attended the seminar during approved leave (personal time), not official time, and no specific law or administrative rule prohibits attendance at seminars during personal leave. Executive Order No. 77 applies only to official local travels requiring travel authority, not to personal activities undertaken during leave. There was no evidence of corruption or personal benefit derived from the activity.
• Serious Dishonesty: Serious dishonesty was not proven because intent to deceive or defraud was absent. Dishonesty requires concealment or distortion of truth in a matter relevant to one's office with intent to deceive. Here, there was no finding of fact that petitioner misrepresented herself as acting on behalf of the NAP; the City of Bacoor's request for the NAP seal actually negated any inference of misrepresentation. Petitioner readily admitted her participation when confronted and apologized, demonstrating lack of intent to conceal or defraud.
• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: The charge was unsubstantiated because conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service requires an act that tarnishes the image and integrity of the public office. Petitioner's act of sharing expertise with another government unit, which resulted in Bacoor City thanking the NAP for its contribution, did not tarnish but rather enhanced the agency's reputation. Absent evidence of maladministration or neglect of duty, the charge must fail.
• Intellectual Property: Dissemination of NAP materials was permissible under Section 176.1 of the Intellectual Property Code, which provides that no copyright subsists in government works and no prior approval is required for use in meetings of public character or for non-profit purposes.

• Grave Misconduct Distinguished from Simple Misconduct — Grave misconduct is characterized by the additional elements of corruption, clear willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules, supported by substantial evidence. Corruption consists in the unlawful and wrongful use of one's station to procure benefit for oneself or another contrary to duty. Simple misconduct involves transgression of established rules without these aggravating elements. In this case, the Court found that attending a seminar during approved leave, without official authorization, did not constitute grave misconduct absent proof of corruption or flagrant disregard, particularly where no specific prohibition existed against such activity during personal leave.
• Elements of Serious Dishonesty — Dishonesty is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; it requires concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of duty. To constitute serious dishonesty, intent to deceive or defraud must be manifest, evidenced by personal benefit, untruthful statements, or use of position to create undue advantage. Mere failure to inform the office of activities during leave, without intent to deceive or obtain personal benefit, does not constitute serious dishonesty.
• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service — This administrative offense need not be related to the respondent's official functions, but must be an act that tarnishes the image and integrity of the public office. Acts that enhance inter-governmental cooperation or share expertise with other government units, without evidence of maladministration or neglect of duty, do not tarnish the office's image and therefore do not constitute this offense.
• Government Works and Copyright — Under Section 176.1 of the Intellectual Property Code, no copyright subsists in any work of the Government of the Philippines. Prior approval is necessary only for exploitation of such work for profit. No prior approval is required for use in meetings of public character or for non-profit educational purposes.

• "Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, particularly, as a result of a public officer's unlawful behavior, recklessness, or gross negligence. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, clear willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules, supported by substantial evidence." — Articulates the distinction between simple and grave misconduct.
• "Dishonesty is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness and disposition betray. It is the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his or her duty." — Defines the nature and scope of dishonesty as an administrative offense.
• "We take judicial notice of the fact that local travels when done on personal account do not require travel authority, unlike in the case of foreign travels whether personal or official. Local travels in a government employee's personal capacity, as they involve absence from work and work station, only entail the filing and approval of leave of absence." — Establishes the distinction between official and personal local travel requirements.
• "No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit... No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character." — Cites Section 176.1 of the IP Code regarding government works.

• Office of the Ombudsman v. Miedes, Sr., 570 Phil. 464 (2008) — Controlling precedent distinguishing grave from simple misconduct; held that grave misconduct requires elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of rules. Applied to determine that petitioner's acts lacked the aggravating elements necessary for grave misconduct.
• Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, 508 Phil. 569 (2005) — Controlling precedent on grave misconduct; cited for the standard that dismissal requires substantial evidence of grave misconduct, not merely simple misconduct, particularly for first offenses.
• Faeldonea v. Civil Service Commission, 435 Phil. 410 (2002) — Controlling precedent on dishonesty; held that lack of ill or selfish motives and absence of concealment of truth preclude a finding of dishonesty. Applied to exonerate petitioner from serious dishonesty charges.
• Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas v. Castro, 759 Phil. 68 (2015) — Controlling precedent defining conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as acts that tarnish the image and integrity of the public office, regardless of relation to official functions.

• Section 176.1, Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines) — Provides that no copyright subsists in government works and prior approval is required only for exploitation for profit. Applied to hold that dissemination of NAP handouts at the seminar required no prior approval as it was not for profit but for public service.
• Executive Order No. 77, Series of 2019 — Prescribes rules for official local and foreign travels of government personnel. Interpreted to apply only to official travels on official time, not to personal activities undertaken during approved leave of absence.

Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lopez, JJ.