National Power Corporation vs. Olandesca

Dishonesty, as a ground for dismissal from the service, requires an intent to deceive or defraud; where an employee takes property from his employer without the prescribed requisition slip but records the withdrawals, voluntarily replaces the items, and uses them for the employer's own benefit rather than for personal gain, the offense amounts only to a violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, punishable by reprimand for a first offense. Corollarily, an employee whose proper penalty is reprimand but who was in fact dismissed is entitled to backwages, since a reprimand does not bar the employee from reporting to work, unlike dismissal or suspension.

Petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Republic Act No. 6395, as amended, with the mandate to undertake the development of hydroelectric generation of power and the production of electricity from nuclear, geothermal and other sources, as well as the transmission of electric power, on a nationwide basis. Respondent Alan A. Olandesca was first employed by NPC as an Extension Aide assigned at the Tiwi Watershed and thereafter held various positions, namely, Senior Forest Ranger, Extension Services Officer, Watershed Management Officer, Procurement Officer B, Senior Property/Supply Officer, and Senior Property Officer; at the time of the alleged commission of the acts of dishonesty, he held the position of Supervising Property Officer of the Angat River Hydroelectric Plant (HEP) in San Lorenzo, Norzagaray, Bulacan. While employed by NPC, Olandesca was allowed to stay in a house within NPC's premises. As Supervising Property Officer, he had custody of all materials and supplies stored at the property office of the Angat River HEP and was accountable for those properties turned over to him under his Property Accountability Report; he was likewise tasked to monitor the proper documentation of the receipt and release of all items, materials, and supplies in his custody. It was NPC's policy that the receipt and release of any item from the property office be covered by a Warehouse Requisition Slip (WRS) duly approved by higher authorities.

Alan A. Olandesca was, at the time of the acts complained of, the Supervising Property Officer of the Angat River Hydroelectric Plant (HEP) in San Lorenzo, Norzagaray, Bulacan, and in that capacity had custody of all materials and supplies stored at the plant's property office, was accountable for those properties under his Property Accountability Report, and was tasked to monitor the proper documentation of the receipt and release of every item in his custody. While employed by NPC, he was allowed to stay in a house within NPC's premises. Company policy required that the receipt and release of any item from the property office be covered by a Warehouse Requisition Slip (WRS) duly approved by higher authorities.

On ten occasions between November 17, 1996 and January 25, 1997, Olandesca withdrew several items from the warehouse and property office without the required WRS. The withdrawals consisted of three rolls of interlink wire (8 ft. x 50 ft.) on November 17, 1996 at 4:45 p.m.; five rolls of barbed wire (50 kgs./roll) on November 23, 1996 at 9:30 p.m.; five rolls of barbed wire on December 12, 1996 at 8:45 p.m.; three rolls of barbed wire and one-fourth kilo of 3-inch nails on January 4, 1997 at 2:25 p.m.; two rolls of barbed wire and two and one-half kilos of 3-inch nails on January 7, 1997 at 7:45 a.m.; one roll of barbed wire and one roll of G.I. wire on January 8, 1997 at 11:00 a.m.; one roll of interlink wire on January 17, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.; three rolls of interlink wire on January 18, 1997 at 6:45 p.m.; four rolls of interlink wire on January 23, 1997 at 11:30 a.m.; and two rolls of interlink wire on January 25, 1997 at 11:55 a.m. — a total value of ₱29,626.00. On three occasions he transported the items during nighttime, and on some occasions he used NPC's corporate vehicle to transport the materials he took from the property office; on one occasion he even used an outsider to withdraw interlink wires from the warehouse. Upon his directive, all the items he withdrew were duly recorded in the security logbook of the security guard on duty.

Olandesca thereafter used the items to fence two development areas forming part of the NPC Angat Watershed Areas and Reservations. On January 28, 1997, three days after the last withdrawal, he replaced all the items he had taken, acting at his own initiative.

The following month, the management team held a meeting at which the issue of Olandesca's withdrawal of items from the property office was raised; because the items withdrawn had already been replaced, the management team considered the case closed and terminated. Nevertheless, Teodulo V. Largo, Section Chief of the Angat River HEP, filed with the Officer-in-Charge of the Angat River HEP a complaint against Olandesca for acts inimical to the government and for violation of Article VI, Sections 3(f) and 3.15 of the NPC Code of Conduct and Discipline, charging him with grave misconduct and alleging that he maliciously withdrew several materials and supplies from the Angat River HEP warehouse without the approved WRS from the Angat HEP Management. After evaluating the complaint, Lino S. Cruz, NPC's Vice-President for the Northern Luzon Regional Center, administratively charged Olandesca with Acts of Dishonesty/Getting Supplies, Materials for Personal Use/Acts Prejudicial to the Interest of the Corporation in Administrative Case No. 97-20, alleging that, taking advantage of his position and with intent of gain, he maliciously and personally withdrew the enumerated materials and supplies without an approved WRS, and that the materials so withdrawn were personally used by him in his clearing and planting activities within the Angat Watershed Area covered by Proclamation No. 55 and P.D. No. 599, to the great damage and prejudice of the corporation.

For his defense, Olandesca maintained that the various materials he took from the warehouse were used to fence the mango seedlings planted on NPC's watershed areas, and that he did not realize any personal gain since it was NPC that benefited from his initiative. This was admitted by the parties in their stipulation of facts, which provided that the watershed areas fenced by Olandesca with the materials taken from NPC's warehouse are properties of NPC. In 1989, while still Extension Services Officer, he had planted mango seedlings in those areas in line with the mango seedlings dispersal program he initiated; the materials were borrowed from NPC's property warehouse, and the withdrawal was duly recorded in the security logbook by the guard on duty. He replaced all the materials taken three days after the last withdrawal even without any demand from any of NPC's officers or personnel. He explained that he was forced to take the properties during nighttime and on weekends because he had to attend to his official duties during office hours, and that he committed an honest mistake in replacing the materials withdrawn, since they had never ceased and continued to remain NPC's properties, being used for the protection of the mango seedlings found on NPC's property.

The Regional Board of Inquiry and Discipline found Olandesca liable and recommended dismissal with forfeiture of all cash and non-cash benefits, a recommendation adopted by NPC's Vice-President for the Northern Luzon Regional Center and by NPC's President. The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, found that Olandesca acted in complete good faith and was motivated only by a desire to serve the public beyond the call of duty; that while the recording of the withdrawn items in the logbook fell short of NPC's documentary requirement, the initiative to have the withdrawals logged negated any intention to deceive or defraud; that he displayed honesty when he promptly and voluntarily replaced the items; and that he did not misappropriate the items for personal use but used them to fence an NPC project he thought was in peril. The Court of Appeals likewise found that, although Olandesca had initiated the planting of trees in the watershed areas when he was still Extension Services Officer, it was no longer his duty to attend to it after his promotion, yet he acted according to what he perceived to be proper in order to save the project even at the risk of being reprimanded for taking shortcuts in the administrative process.

• Dishonesty and Abuse of Trust: Petitioner alleged that respondent's act of taking materials without the required WRS during Saturdays and Sundays, and even during nighttime, proved his lack of moral principle and integrity as a public employee, and clearly proved his intention to cheat his employer by deliberately and maliciously taking undue advantage of his position as Supervising Property Officer; he took advantage of and gravely abused his position of trust by ignoring the usual and normal procedure for taking out properties from the warehouse, which amounts to bad faith and malice.
• Badges of Intent to Cheat: Petitioner asserted that respondent's intent to cheat was manifested by the following acts: (a) the ten separate and distinct acts of taking clearly indicate habituality; (b) the unlawful withdrawals during Saturdays and Sundays and even during nighttime evince taking undue advantage of the absence of other employees; (c) the connivance with an outsider, a certain Canlas, to take some of the items on one occasion makes his intent doubly suspicious; (d) the instruction to the security guard to record the withdrawals in the logbook instead of showing the required WRS or MIV is a clear abuse of authority; (e) the subsequent replacement of the items taken with inferior quality placed NPC at a clear disadvantage; and (f) the subsequent taking of items even after the instruction or advice of his immediate supervisor to stop and desist from making any further withdrawals shows a clear disregard of lawful order.
• Cover-Up and Personal Benefit: Petitioner submitted that respondent's instruction to the security guard on duty to record all the items he brought out from the warehouse served as a cover-up to avoid detection or possible suspicion that the taking was unauthorized; that the area fenced by respondent was exactly the same area which he occupied for his own personal benefit, which he enclosed to protect his own interest; that by replacing the items he withdrew, respondent in effect admitted that the withdrawals were indeed unauthorized; and that although the two development areas fenced by respondent were part of the Angat Watershed Areas and Reservations belonging to petitioner, this did not necessarily imply that respondent did not have the intent to enrich himself, because he was the occupant and usufructuary thereof.
• Exception to Rule 45: Petitioner argued that the present petition falls under the well-established exceptions to the general rule regarding Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

• Absence of Intent to Defraud: Respondent maintained that the various materials he took from the warehouse were used to fence the mango seedlings planted on petitioner's watershed areas; that he did not realize any personal gain, as it was petitioner who benefited from his initiative; that this was admitted by the parties in their stipulation of facts, which provides that the watershed areas fenced by respondent with the materials taken from petitioner's warehouse are properties of petitioner; that in 1989, as then Extension Services Officer, he planted mango seedlings in the said areas in line with the mango seedlings dispersal program he initiated; that it was also stipulated that the materials were borrowed from petitioner's property warehouse and that the withdrawal was duly recorded in the security logbook by the security guard on duty; and that he replaced all the materials taken three days after the last withdrawal even without any demand from any of petitioner's officers or personnel, thereby negating any intent to conceal the truth or to defraud the government.
• Explanation for Nighttime and Weekend Withdrawals: Respondent explained that he was forced to take the properties from the warehouse during nighttime and on weekends because he had to attend to his official duties during office hours.
• Honest Mistake in Replacing the Materials: Respondent claimed that he committed an honest mistake in replacing the materials withdrawn, asserting that he should not have replaced them considering that they had never ceased and continued to remain petitioner's properties, as the same were used for the protection of the mango seedlings found in petitioner's property.

• Dishonesty: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the factual findings of the Civil Service Commission and the National Power Corporation on the acts of dishonesty committed by respondent which are shown by the undisputed facts.
• Intent to Cheat: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the facts established do not show intent to cheat, deceive or defraud the National Power Corporation.
• Exception to Rule 45: Whether the present petition falls under the well-established exceptions to the general rule regarding Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

• Dishonesty: No. The Court of Appeals' factual findings were affirmed; the taking of supplies without the approved Warehouse Requisition Slip did not amount to dishonesty, which requires a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud, because the withdrawals were logged, the items were voluntarily replaced, and no personal benefit was shown.
• Intent to Cheat: No. The recording of the withdrawals in the security guard's logbook, the voluntary replacement of the items three days after the last withdrawal, and the absence of misappropriation for personal use negated the intent to deceive or defraud that is the essence of dishonesty.
• Exception to Rule 45: Not separately resolved. The Court proceeded to resolve the petition on the merits and agreed with the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, denying the petition for lack of merit.
• Penalty and Backwages: Respondent was liable only for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations under Section 52(C)(3), Rule IV of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, a light offense punishable by reprimand on first offense; because reprimand was the appropriate penalty from the outset, the Court of Appeals' award of backwages was affirmed.

• Dishonesty: The Court agreed with the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. In Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Rilloroza, dishonesty is defined as the 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. It was not disputed that respondent took several materials and supplies from petitioner's warehouse without the approved WRS, but this should not be construed as dishonesty warranting dismissal from the service for four reasons. First, the withdrawals of the supplies were duly recorded in the security guard's logbook; had respondent intended to defraud petitioner, he could easily have taken items from the warehouse without having them recorded, since he was then the Supervising Property Officer with free access to the supplies, and the act of allowing the recording to be done in the logbook indicated his lack of intent to deceive or defraud. Second, right after withdrawing the items, respondent replaced them on his own initiative without anyone instructing him to do so, which negated his intent to defraud; when the issue of the withdrawal was raised in the management team meeting, the team considered the case against him closed and terminated upon learning that the items had been replaced, showing that the management team's initial assessment was that the taking was not so grave as to warrant further investigation or the imposition of any sanction. Third, there was no clear showing that respondent misappropriated or converted the items for his own personal use or benefit; in a Memorandum dated October 8, 1998 to Federico E. Puno, President of petitioner, Atty. Lamberto P. Melencio, Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Vice-President, General Counsel, acting on respondent's Petition for Reconsideration, found that no dishonesty was committed but only a violation of reasonable office rules and regulations because the withdrawal of supplies was not covered by the approved WRS, and recommended that petitioner's Decision be reconsidered and set aside and that, considering that this was his first offense, he be meted only the penalty of reprimand instead of dismissal, appending a draft of the letter to be sent to respondent adopting and approving that recommendation — showing that early on, even petitioner's Office of the General Counsel found the penalty of dismissal inappropriate. Fourth, the Graft Investigation Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman, in its Resolution dated February 5, 1999 in OMB-1-98-2011, dismissed the complaint for qualified theft filed by Teodulo V. Largo, Section Chief, Power Generation Group of petitioner, against respondent, there being no competent and sufficient evidence on record to show intent to gain on the part of respondent considering that the materials and supplies taken by him were used in fencing the watershed and reservation area of petitioner; likewise, there was no basis to charge him for malversation of public property as there was no misappropriation of the supplies for his personal use and the same were for general purpose and not for any specific use. The Resolution also found that respondent acted in good faith and that there was no undue injury to petitioner as the materials and supplies were used in petitioner's premises, so that the company itself benefited from respondent's conduct.
• Intent to Cheat: The absence of any effort at concealment was decisive: any person who intends to deceive or commit any misdeed would not want to leave any trace of his unlawful act, and would instead do everything necessary to conceal the subject of his wrongful act; respondent, by contrast, directed that the withdrawals be entered in the security guard's logbook even though he had free access to the warehouse as Supervising Property Officer. His prompt and voluntary replacement of all the items three days after the last withdrawal, without any demand from petitioner's officers or personnel, further negated intent to defraud, and the management team itself treated the matter as closed upon learning of the replacement. No misappropriation or conversion for personal use or benefit was shown, the materials having been used to fence areas stipulated to be petitioner's own property; the Office of the Ombudsman likewise found no intent to gain and no undue injury, since the supplies were used within petitioner's premises for a general purpose. The elements of intent to deceive and intent to defraud being absent, the acts complained of could not be characterized as dishonesty.
• Exception to Rule 45: The Court did not separately pass upon this issue. It proceeded to the merits of the petition, agreed with the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, and denied the petition for lack of merit.
• Penalty and Backwages: Although respondent did not commit an overt act of dishonesty, he was not exonerated from liability. It was an established company procedure that before materials could be taken out from the warehouse, the issuance of a WRS was an indispensable requirement, and there was even a warning posted at the door of the property office stating: "BAWAL MAGLABAS NG GAMIT O MAGKARGA NG GASOLINA NG WALANG APRUBADONG WRS." As Supervising Property Officer, respondent knew fully well that taking items from the warehouse without the required WRS was against company rules and regulations, and his paramount duty was to protect the properties in the warehouse and to ensure that none would be taken away without proper documentation; the Machiavellian principle that "the end justifies the means" has no place in government service, which thrives on the rule of law, consistency and stability. By taking the properties without the approved WRS, respondent violated reasonable office rules and regulations as provided in Section 52(C)(3), Rule IV of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999 (Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service), a light offense whose penalty for the first offense is reprimand; since this was respondent's first offense in more than sixteen years of service, the appropriate penalty was reprimand. Reprimand being the appropriate imposable penalty from the very beginning, respondent was unfairly denied the opportunity to report for work and earn his keep, entitling him to the payment of backwages. The Court distinguished its earlier pronouncements in Re: Initial Reports on the Grenade Incident that Occurred at about 6:40 a.m. on December 6, 1999 Submitted by DCAs Zenaida Elepaño and Reynaldo Suarez, where a suspended public official was held not entitled to compensation for service not actually rendered unless later declared totally innocent, and in Sales vs. Mathay, where back salaries were denied to an employee whose dismissal was reduced to six months' suspension for gross neglect of duty, on the ground that a public official is not entitled to compensation if he has not rendered service. Those cases were inapplicable because the proper penalty in this case was only reprimand. The Court drew a distinction between the penalties of dismissal or suspension and reprimand and their respective effects on the grant of backwages: when an employee is dismissed or suspended, it is but logical that, being barred from reporting to work, he has no opportunity to work during that period and therefore no salary to expect; a reprimand, however, usually carries only a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely, and under normal circumstances an employee who is reprimanded is never prevented from reporting to work and continues to work despite the warning. In two instances — Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals, where backwages were awarded after the petitioner was found culpable only of violating reasonable office rules and regulations for not having asked permission from school authorities to leave the school premises and seek medical attention and for not filing an application for sick leave, and Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals, where Rodolfo Mariano was held liable only for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations for attending the wake and internment of his grandmother without an approved leave of absence and was still granted backwages despite the imposition of the penalty of reprimand — the Court granted backwages during the period the employees were prevented from reporting to work despite concluding that they had violated reasonable office rules and regulations. In line with Bangalisan and Jacinto, the grant of backwages to respondent was proper, it being stressed that in the imposition of the appropriate penalties, the penalty must not only be made within the parameters of the law but should also satisfy the basic tenets of equity, justice, and fairplay.

• Dishonesty — Dishonesty is defined as the 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. It is not enough that an employee violated a company procedure or took property without the prescribed documentation; the essence of the offense is the intent to deceive or defraud, and where that intent is absent, the misconduct cannot be characterized as dishonesty warranting dismissal. In this case, the Court applied the definition from Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Rilloroza and held that Olandesca's unauthorized withdrawals, standing alone, did not constitute dishonesty.
• Badges Negating Intent to Deceive or Defraud — The Court relied on three circumstances as negating the intent essential to dishonesty: (1) the employee caused the withdrawals to be recorded in the security guard's logbook despite having free access to the warehouse and the ability to take items without leaving any trace; (2) the employee voluntarily replaced all the items on his own initiative, without any demand, three days after the last withdrawal; and (3) there was no showing that the employee misappropriated or converted the items for his own personal use or benefit, the materials having been used on the employer's own premises and for the employer's benefit. Any person who intends to deceive or commit a misdeed would not leave a trace of his unlawful act but would do everything necessary to conceal it.
• Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations — Under Section 52(C)(3), Rule IV of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999 (Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service), violation of reasonable office rules and regulations is a light offense, and the penalty for the first offense is reprimand. The offense is distinct from, and less grave than, dishonesty; an employee who violates an established internal procedure — such as the indispensable requirement of an approved Warehouse Requisition Slip before materials may be taken from the warehouse — is liable for this light offense even if he acted in good faith and without intent to defraud.
• "The End Justifies the Means" Has No Place in Government Service — The Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means has no place in government service, which thrives on the rule of law, consistency and stability. Good intentions or perceived benefit to the employer do not excuse an employee's disregard of established office rules and regulations; the employee's paramount duty is to comply with those rules.
• Backwages: Dismissal or Suspension Distinguished from Reprimand — A public official is generally not entitled to compensation for service not actually rendered, so that an employee validly dismissed or suspended, even if the penalty is later reduced, has no right to backwages for the period he was barred from working. The rule does not apply where the proper penalty from the outset is only reprimand: a reprimand ordinarily carries merely a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely, and an employee who is reprimanded is never prevented from reporting to work and continues to work despite the warning. Accordingly, an employee who should have been reprimanded but was instead dismissed is entitled to backwages, the imposition of penalties being subject not only to the parameters of law but also to the basic tenets of equity, justice, and fairplay.

• "dishonesty is defined as the 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." — This is the Court's canonical formulation of dishonesty, drawn from Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Rilloroza, and it supplies the controlling standard against which Olandesca's conduct was measured.
• "Any person who intends to deceive or commit any misdeed certainly would not want to leave any trace of his unlawful act. On the contrary, one would do everything necessary to conceal the subject of his wrongful act." — This passage states the ratio for the first ground negating dishonesty: because Olandesca directed that the withdrawals be entered in the security guard's logbook despite his free access to the warehouse, he manifested the absence of any intent to deceive or defraud.
• "The Machiavellian principle that 'the end justifies the means' has no place in government service, which thrives on the rule of law, consistency and stability." — This is the Court's frequently quoted pronouncement explaining why Olandesca's good intentions and the perceived benefit to NPC did not exonerate him from liability for violating the reasonable office rule requiring an approved Warehouse Requisition Slip.
• "Under normal circumstances, an employee who is reprimanded is never prevented from reporting to work. He continues to work despite the warning." — This passage anchors the Court's distinction between dismissal or suspension, on the one hand, and reprimand, on the other, and explains why the award of backwages to Olandesca was proper.

• Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Rilloroza, G.R. No. 141141, June 25, 2001, 359 SCRA 525 — Controlling precedent supplying the definition of dishonesty applied by the Court; cited as the source of the elements and characteristics that Olandesca's conduct was tested against.
• Re: Initial Reports on the Grenade Incident that Occurred at about 6:40 a.m. on December 6, 1999 Submitted by DCAs Zenaida Elepaño and Reynaldo Suarez, A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC, October 10, 2001, 367 SCRA 1 — Cited for the general rule that a suspended public official is not entitled to any compensation for service not actually rendered unless later declared totally innocent of the charges; distinguished and held inapplicable because the proper penalty in this case was only reprimand.
• Sales vs. Mathay, No. L-39557, May 3, 1984, 129 SCRA 180 — Cited for the proposition that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not rendered any service, back salaries having been denied therein even after the penalty of dismissal was reduced to six months' suspension; distinguished on the same ground that the imposable penalty here was reprimand.
• Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124540, November 14, 1997, 281 SCRA 657 — Followed; the Court awarded backwages after finding the petitioner therein culpable only of violating reasonable office rules and regulations, and relied on it to sustain the award of backwages to Olandesca.
• Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124678, July 31, 1997, 276 SCRA 619 — Followed; the Court affirmed the finding that petitioner Rodolfo Mariano was liable only for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and, despite imposing the penalty of reprimand, still granted him backwages.

• Republic Act No. 6395, Section 2 — The charter provision establishing petitioner National Power Corporation as a government-owned and controlled corporation mandated to undertake the development of hydroelectric generation of power and the production of electricity from nuclear, geothermal and other sources, as well as the transmission of electric power on a nationwide basis; it supplies the statutory backdrop for the corporation's disciplinary authority over its employees.
• Article VI, Sections 3(f) and 3.15, NPC Code of Conduct and Discipline — The provisions invoked by complainant Teodulo V. Largo in charging respondent with acts inimical to the government and with grave misconduct; the administrative charge ultimately framed by NPC, however, was for Acts of Dishonesty/Getting Supplies, Materials for Personal Use/Acts Prejudicial to the Interest of the Corporation.
• Section 52(C)(3), Rule IV, Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999 (Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service) — Provides that violation of reasonable office rules and regulations is a light offense with the penalty of reprimand for the first offense. The Court applied this provision to hold that respondent, who took materials from the warehouse without the indispensable approved Warehouse Requisition Slip, was guilty only of this light offense and should be reprimanded rather than dismissed.
• Section 13, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — The constitutional requirement, recited in the certification accompanying the decision, that the conclusions of the Court had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion.

• Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno
• Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio
• Associate Justice Renato C. Corona
• Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales
• Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
• Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (No part)
• Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
• Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion
• Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin
• Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo
• Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad
• Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.
• Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez
• Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza