ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE

An Overview of Civil Service Law and Rules

DEFINITION:

A part of Administrative law which deals with administrative infractions or grounds for
disciplinary actions, administrative penalties and administrative disciplinary procedure.

LEGAL BASES:

1. Art. XI, 1987 Constitution (Public Accountability)

2. Art. IX, 1987 Constitution (Civil Service)

3. The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. 292)

4. Local Government Code

5. RA 6713

6. The Ombudsman Act

7. Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases

8. Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases

9. Supreme Court Decisions

10. CSC Resolutions

11. Other Laws dealing with administrative discipline

Administrative Discipline had its genesis from the constitutional mandate which states as
follows:

"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."
(Art. XI, Accountability of Public Officers)

The phrase "public office is a public trust" refers to a representative government, the
officers being mere agents and not rulers of the people, one where no one man or set of
men has a proprietary or contractual right to an office, but where every officer accepts
office pursuant to the provisions of law and holds the office as a trust for the people.

Characteristics of Administrative Discipline:

Administrative offenses do not prescribe. (Floria vs. Sunga, 368 SCRA 551)
Administrative cases are not subject to settlement.
The withdrawal of the complainant is not a ground for the dismissal.
The complainant is a mere witness to the commission of the offense, hence,
anybody can file an administrative complaint.

No officer or employee of the government can be disciplined or removed from office

except for cause and after due process. (Art. IX-B, Sec. 2, par. 3, 1987 Constitution)

— The phrase "for cause" refers to grounds for disciplinary actions enumerated
in the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292).

— The procedure in administrative cases is governed by CSC Resolution No.

99-1936 (The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service) with
the Rules of Court being applied in suppletory character.

Investigation and adjudication of administrative complaints against appointive local

officials and employees as well as their suspension and removal shall be in accordance
with the Civil Service Law and Rules and other pertinent laws. The results of such
administrative investigations shall be reported to the Civil Service Commission. (Sec. 84,
Local Government Code)

Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. — The Office of the Ombudsman

shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the
Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of
the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over
Members of Congress, and the Judiciary. (Sec. 21, RA 6770, The Ombudsman Act)

Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient

cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee even if no criminal
prosecution is instituted against him. (Sec. 11, par. b, RA 6713, The Code of Conduct)

JURISDICTION:

The authority to hear and decide cases and the power or jurisdiction to institute
disciplinary actions in administrative cases is lodged only on the disciplinary authority to
which such power is vested by law. Absent such legal basis the power to discipline cannot
be exercised.

Heads of agencies have jurisdiction to investigate and discipline their own officials and
employees. However, heads of agencies may delegate the power to investigate to their
subordinates and just wait the recommendations which will be made afterwards. (Sec. 47,
par. 2 and 3, EO 292).

The authority that decides the case, therefore, is also clothed with the power to
investigate and is deemed to have done the same even if in reality somebody else
conducted it by virtue of delegation.

Jurisprudence on Jurisdiction:

"Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and

determined by the allegations in the complaint". (Deltaventures Resources,
Inc. vs. Cabato, 327 SCRA 482)

Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by mere administrative policy of any

court or tribunal. (Arranza vs. BF Homes, Inc., 333 SCRA 799)

"The Court loses jurisdiction upon the finality of the decision, except to order
the execution within its lifetime". (Lizardo, Sr. vs. Montano, 332 SCRA 163).

"Jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent or waiver while the venue of an

action may be changed by consent of the parties". (Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc.
vs. Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City, 344 SCRA 680)

Kinds of Jurisdiction

1. Original jurisdiction — Jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases

which exist for the first time (i.e., complaint, petition, protest, request for
favorable recommendation for executive clemency) under it are of two
sub-classifications:

a. Exclusive original jurisdiction — Original jurisdiction

which cannot be exercised by another body. Example is the
jurisdiction of the CSC over examination-related cases, cases of
sexual harassment filed against its officials and employees,
requests for a favorable recommendation for executive clemency,
requests for extension of service, requests to transfer venue of
 hearing being conducted by any of the CSC offices and other
cases which other bodies cannot legally act upon.

b. Concurrent original jurisdiction — Original jurisdiction

which two or more bodies may exercise. This, however, cannot be
exercised simultaneously as the same gives rise to the prohibited
practice of forum shopping. This is subject to the rule that the
assumption of one body over a case excludes other bodies that
may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the same.

Under RA 4670, the disciplinary jurisdiction over public school teachers rests
exclusively on DepEd. (Armand Fabella, et al. vs. CA, 282 SCRA 256)

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction — When two bodies have concurrent jurisdiction,
one of which is deemed to have an expertise over the subject matter of the case, the other
body gives way to the expert to exercise the primary jurisdiction.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — Before going to court, all remedies within

the level of administrative bodies must first be had, otherwise the action is dismissible for
being premature, subject to certain exceptions.

Res Judicata — When a case has already been disposed of, the same cannot be reopened
anymore or re-filed. It arises when the same case being filed deals with the same cause of
action. The revival of the case under this doctrine is deemed barred by final judgement.
(Santos vs. CA, 226 SCRA 630, Ysmael vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, 190 SCRA 673)

Double jeopardy applies only in criminal cases, hence, cannot be invoked in

administrative cases. (PNB vs. Ricardo Garcia)

Forum Shopping — The practice of shopping for a favorable forum to insure a favorable
action. This is considered a malpractice and can be used as a ground for disciplinary
action. It may also cause the outright dismissal of the case filed. Present rules now
require a certification of non-forum shopping in all initiatory pleadings before the same
can be acted upon.

Permanency of Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction once present is not lost upon the instance of
the parties but continues until the case is terminated. (Que vs. Court of Appeals, 339
SCRA 505) In administrative cases, jurisdiction over the person complained of remains
even if he resigned from the service so long as the offense was committed during his
incumbency. (CSC Resolution No. 99-0298 dated January 1, 1999, Uy, Allan)
Resignation is not a way out to evade administrative liability when facing administrative
sanction. The resignation of a public servant does not preclude the finding of any
administrative liability to which he or she shall still be answerable. [21]

Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, in considering an appointive official ipso facto
resigned, merely provides for the immediate implementation of the penalty for the
prohibited act of engaging in partisan political activity. This provision was not intended,
and should not be used, as a defense against an administrative case for acts committed
during government service. (Esther S. Pagano vs. Juan Nazarro, Jr., et al., G.R. No.
149072, September 21, 2007)

1. Appellate Jurisdiction — Refers to the jurisdiction to take cognizance of

appeals from a decision of a lower deciding authority.

a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction — all decisions of agency heads on

administrative cases whether disciplinary or non-disciplinary are within
the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CSC.

The Party Adversely Affected Doctrine — Refers to the rule that in administrative cases
only the respondent who was found guilty of an offense has the personality to file an
appeal. (Paredes vs. CSC) However, this is a procedural rule which must be invoked by
the appellee; otherwise, the appeal by the complainant may be given due course. (Mendez
vs. CSC)

The CSC is considered a party adversely affected by the decision of a higher court
reversing its decision on the issue of nepotism, since the CSC is the guardian of merit and
fitness in the bureaucracy. (Dacoycoy vs. CSC)

In the case of PNB vs. Ricardo V. Garcia, Jr. September 9, 2002, the Supreme Court
expressly abandoned the party-adversely-affected doctrine holding that the effort of the
government to curb graft and corruption, malfeasance and misfeasance in the government
will be rendered meaningless if appeal cannot be had from erroneous administrative
decisions.

 The complainant in an administrative case is absolutely without personality

to appeal, except if he/she is the agency head, the Civil Service
Commission or the same is not put in issue. (NAB vs. Mamauag, 466 SCRA
624, 2005)

Note: Pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, Decisions of the Civil

Service Commission are appealable to the Court of Appeals through a
Petition for Review.
Salient Features of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service

 Decentralization of authority to decide administrative cases: Thus,

CSCROs are now empowered to take cognizance of administrative cases
arising within their jurisdiction and dispose of the same up to logical
conclusion, subject only to appeal which may be taken to the CSC proper.
For this purpose, the jurisdiction of the CSC proper and CSCROs were
delineated as follows:

CSC Proper
A. Disciplinary

1. Decisions of CSCROs brought before it on petition for review;

2. Decisions of heads of departments, agencies, provinces, cities,

municipalities and other instrumentalities;

3. Complaints brought against Civil Service Commission Proper

personnel;

4. Complaints against third level officials who are not presidential

appointees;

5. Complaints against civil service officials and employees which are

not acted upon by the agencies and such other complaints requiring
immediate action, in the interest of justice;

6. Requests for transfer of venue of hearing on cases being heard by

CSCROs;

7. Appeals from the Order of Preventive Suspension; and

8. Such other actions or requests involving issues arising out of or in

connection with the foregoing enumeration.

A. Non-Disciplinary (CSC Proper)

1. Decisions of CSCROs brought before it;

2. Request for favorable recommendation on petition for executive

clemency;
 3. Protests against the appointment or other personnel actions,
involving third level officials; and

4. Such other analogous actions or petitions arising out of or in relation

with the foregoing enumerations.

B. Disciplinary (CSCROs)

1. Complaints initiated by or brought before the CSCROs provided that

the alleged acts or omissions were committed within the jurisdiction of
the Regional Office, including examination anomalies or irregularities and
the persons complained of are employees of agencies, local or national,
within said geographical areas;

2. Complaints involving CSCRO personnel who are appointees of said

office;

3. Petitions to place respondent under preventive suspension.

C. Non-Disciplinary (CSCROs)

1. Disapproval of appointments brought before it on appeal;

2. Protests against the appointments of first and second level employees

brought before it directly or on appeal;

3. Decisions of national agencies and local government units within

their geographical boundaries relative to personnel actions and non-
disciplinary cases brought before it on appeal; and

4. Requests for accreditation of services and correction of personal

information in the records of the Commission.

Jurisdiction of Heads of Agencies

Heads of departments, agencies, cities, municipalities and other instrumentalities shall

have original concurrent jurisdiction with the Commission over their respective officers
and employees.

A. Disciplinary

1. Complaints involving their respective personnel. Their decisions

shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than
thirty (30) days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30) days salary.
 Decisions of Heads of agencies imposing a penalty of removal shall be executory only
after confirmation by the Department Secretary concerned;

COMPLAINT — The means to bring to the attention of the proper disciplining authority
the commission of infraction by the one complained of.

Requisites of a valid complaint

 It must be in writing;

 Subscribed and sworn to by the complainant;

 Must contain the name and address of the complainant;

 Must contain the full name and address of the person complained of as well
as his position and office of employment;

 Must contain a narration of how, when and where the offense was
committed and other facts relevant thereto;

 Must contain certified true copies of documentary evidence and affidavits

of witnesses, if any; and

 Must contain a certification of non-forum shopping.

Notes:

 A complaint initiated by the disciplining authority need not be under oath;

 An anonymous complaint shall not be given due course unless supported by

obvious truth or such documentary or other direct evidence showing the
probability that the offense was indeed committed by the person
complained of, in which case, the latter may be asked to file counter-
affidavit;

 The withdrawal of the complaint does not necessarily result in the dismissal
of the case;

 The technical requirements for a valid complaint should be complied with

otherwise the complaint will not be acted upon. Instead, notice to the
complainant shall be sent requiring such compliance. In case of further
failure to comply despite notice, the complaint shall be dismissed.
  In case the complaint is sufficient in form and substance, the person
complained of shall be required to submit a counter-affidavit. If a prima
facie case exists, Formal Charge shall be issued, otherwise the complaint
shall be dismissed. Failure to submit a counter-affidavit is deemed a waiver
thereof. (Preliminary Investigation)

 Preliminary Investigation already includes the fact-finding investigation

which is an ex-parte examination of records.

 After a Formal Charge is issued, the respondent will be asked to file an

answer. In case of failure, he is deemed to have waived the same and formal
investigation shall already commence.

Preventive Suspension — A precautionary measure to insure that the respondent will not
suppress evidence or harass the witnesses against him which is done by placing him
under suspension for a certain period (60 days in LGU, 90 days in NGAs and 6 months if
the suspension is imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman).

Requisites of a valid preventive suspension:

 Formal Charge was already issued.

 Respondent is either charged with dishonesty, oppression, grave

misconduct, neglect in the performance of duty or if there are reasons to
believe the respondent is guilty of charge/s which would warrant his
removal from the service.

 In lieu of preventive suspension, the proper disciplining authority or head

of office may reassign respondent to another unit of the agency during the
formal hearings.

 Preventive suspension shall be deferred or interrupted during the

respondent's maternity or paternity leave.

 The period of delay owing to the fault of the respondent shall not be
included in counting the period of preventive suspension.

 Although interlocutory in character, an order of preventive suspension may

be appealed to the CSC if it is found to be unwarranted, not in accordance
with law or without basis.

 Back wages shall be paid in case a preventive suspension is declared illegal

or null and void under the following circumstances:
 1. The Order was issued by one who is not authorized by law;

2. The order was not premised on any of the grounds or causes

warranted by law;

3. The order of preventive suspension was issued without a formal

charge; or

4. The duration has exceeded the prescribed period, in which case the
payment of back salaries shall correspond to the excess period only.

A declaration of invalidity of a preventive suspension not based on

any of the reasons aforestated, shall similarly result in the reinstatement of
the employee concerned but back wages shall not be paid unless the
respondent is subsequently exonerated of the charges against him (CSC
Resolution No. 030502 dated May 5, 2003).

• Back wages shall not be paid for a valid preventive suspension

even if the respondent is exonerated since in that case the
suspension is legal (Gloria vs. CSC).

• Preventive suspension is not valid if the employee is not in the

position to harass witnesses or suppress evidence. (Gellegani, Ma.
Cynthia P.A., CSC Res. No. 021021)

Remedies
Motion for Reconsideration — An initial remedy to seek a reversal of an unfavorable
decision and should be filed within 15 days from receipt of the decision.

A. It should be based on the following grounds:

a. New evidence has been discovered which materially affects the

decision rendered,

b. The decision is not supported by the evidence on record, or

c. Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the

interest of the movant.

Note:

Only one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed.

 It stays the running of the reglementary period to appeal.

B. Appeal — An action before higher authority seeking a review and reversal of

the decision rendered by the body which first decided the case.
 Can be resorted to only in case the penalty imposed is more than 30 days
suspension or fine equivalent to more than 30 days salary.

 Appeal does not stay the execution of the decision appealed from except if
the penalty is removal where confirmation by the Secretary is needed
before the same may be executed. And except further if the decision
appealed from was rendered by a CSCRO in which case, the appeal taken
to the CSC proper stays the execution of the decision appealed from.

 An appeal from the decision of the head of an agency that is attached to a

department imposing more than 30 days penalty is likewise appealable
directly to the Commission Proper without the need for confirmation by the
secretary concerned. Pending appeal, the appealed decision is executory.
(CSC Resolution No. 070244 dated Feb. 7, 2007)

 An appeal is taken by filing with the appellate authority a notice of appeal

including the appeal memorandum, copy furnished the office that rendered
the decision. The latter in turn, upon receipt of the copy of appeal, shall
submit the records of the case to the CSC with comment on the appeal.

 Appeal fee in the amount of P500.00 shall be paid.

 A certificate of non-forum shopping shall also be submitted.

 If any of the technical requirements for filing an appeal is lacking, the

appellant shall be informed about it and shall be required to comply within
10 days from receipt of notice. If thereafter, still no compliance is made, the
appeal shall be dismissed due to appellant's intent to delay.

 If on appeal the respondent is found to have been deprived of due process,

the case shall be remanded to the agency head for another investigation,
with due process. The investigation shall be finished in three calendar
months otherwise the respondent shall be considered exonerated.

 The remanding of the case due to lack of due process shall not entail
reinstatement or payment of back wages.

 A decision of a CSCRO dismissing a complaint for lack of prima facie

case may be the subject of a petition for review with the CSC proper.
  The decision of the Civil Service Commission may be appealed to the
Court of Appeals through a petition for review and pending said appeal, the
decision is executory unless the CA issues a Restraining Order.

Petition for Executive Clemency

 A petition for executive clemency may be filed by a dismissed employee
for the purpose of commuting or removing his administrative penalties or
disabilities.

 The petition shall be filed with the CSC which in turn may either deny it or
consider it favorably by recommending such grant to the Office of the
President.

 Although unwritten, the CSC adopts a policy that petitions for executive
clemency may be filed only after five years from the date of the petitioner's
dismissal from the service.

 The petition must be accompanied by: certified true copy of the decision
with a favorable recommendation by the disciplining authority, certification
from reputable members of the community where he resides to the effect
that he has become a useful member thereof.

 Proof of non-pendency of an appeal/petition for review relative to the

disciplinary case before any court/tribunal and proof of payment of
P500.00.

OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave
or light, depending on their gravity and effects on the government service.

Grave offenses are those which may be punished with dismissal from the service for the
first offense or the maximum of 1-year suspension for the first offense and dismissal from
the service for the second offense. Examples of Grave Offenses punishable with dismissal
are:

 Dishonesty

 Gross Neglect of Duty

 Grave Misconduct

 Being Notoriously Undesirable

  Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

 Falsification of Official Document

 Physical or mental incapacity due to immoral or vicious habits

 Engaging directly in partisan political activities

 Receiving for personal use, a fee, gift or other valuable thing in the course
of official duties when the same is given by any person in the hope or
expectation of receiving a favor

 Contracting loans of money or property from persons with whom the office
of the employee has business relations

 Nepotism and Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.

Examples of Grave Offenses punishable with 6 mos. and 1 day to 1 year are:

 Oppression

 Disgraceful and immoral conduct

 Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties

 Frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness

 Refusal to perform official duty

 Gross insubordination

 Conduct prejudicial to the best of interest of the service

 Having financial and material interest in any transaction requiring the

approval of his office; owning, controlling, etc. as officer in any private
enterprise regulated or supervised or licensed by his Office

 Disclosing or misusing confidential of classified information to further his

private interests, among others.

Less Grave offenses are those punishable with 1 mo. and 1 day to 6 mos. For the first
offense and dismissal for the second offense. Examples are:

 Simple Neglect of Duty

  Simple Misconduct

 Gross Discourtesy in the course of official duties

 Violation of CS Law and Rules of serious nature

 Insubordination

 Habitual Drunkenness

 Failure to File sworn statements of assets and liabilities

 Failure to resign from his position in the private business where there is
conflict of interest within 30 days from assumption of public office.

Light Offenses are those punishable with reprimand for the first offense, suspension of
up 30 days for the second offense and dismissal from the service for the third offense.
Examples are:

 Discourtesy

 Improper solicitation from subordinates or school children

 Violation of reasonable office rules and regulations

 Habitual tardiness

 Gambling prohibited by law

 Refusal to render overtime service

 Immorality prior to entering the service

 Borrowing money from subordinates

 Lending money at usurious rates

 Willful failure to pay just debts

 Lobbying for personal gain in legislative halls and offices without authority

 Promoting sale of tickets in behalf of a private enterprise without authority

 Failure to act promptly on letters within 16 days

  Failure to process documents within a reasonable time

Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating or Alternative Circumstances

In determining the imposable penalties, some circumstances may be appreciated for the
purpose of mitigating or aggravating the liability of the respondent. They are as follows:

 Physical illness

 Good faith

 Taking undue advantage of official position

 Taking undue advantage of subordinates

 Undue disclosure of confidential information

 Use of government property in the commission of the offense

 Habitual commission of the offense during office hours and within office
premises

 Employment of fraudulent means to commit or conceal the offense

 Length of service in the government,

 Education or other analogous circumstances.

 If there is no aggravating or mitigating circumstance present, the medium

penalty is imposed.

 It only the aggravating circumstance is present, the maximum penalty shall

be imposed.

 If only mitigating circumstance is present, the minimum penalty shall be

imposed.

 The penalty of dismissal from the service is indivisible, hence, no amount

of mitigating circumstance can reduce the same to a lower penalty.

 When aggravating and mitigating circumstances are present, the penalty

shall be imposed according to the number of each circumstances. If there
are more aggravating circumstances, the maximum shall be imposed; if
 there are more mitigating, the maximum shall be imposed; and if both
equally offset each other, the medium penalty shall be imposed.

Duration and effect of administrative penalties:

 The penalty of dismissal shall result in the permanent separation of the
employee from the service with perpetual disqualification to hold public
office.

 Suspension shall be considered a gap in the service and during that period
the respondent will not be entitled to all money benefits including leave
credits. He shall not also be promoted during the said period.

 The penalty of fine shall be in an amount not exceeding 6 months salary of

the respondent. The prohibition for promotion shall be equivalent to the
period had the penalty been suspension. The fine shall be paid to the agency
that imposed the same.

 The penalty of reprimand does not carry any accessory penalty.

Effect of exoneration:
 If a civil service employee was illegally suspended or dismissed, legally
speaking, his position did not become vacant, so the appointment of another
to the post during the suspension period is temporary and precarious and no
obstacle to reinstatement of the person who was illegally suspended or
dismissed (Batungbakal vs. National Dev. Co. 93 Phil. 182)

 If total exoneration is declared, the illegally dismissed or suspended

employee is entitled to reinstatement with payment of backwages and other
benefits but only for the period not exceeding five (5) years. (San Luis vs.
Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 258)

CONTEMPT
 Any official/employee/person
following acts or omissions
disobedience of or resistance
resolution, ruling, summons,
Commission.
found guilty after due proceedings of the
may be punished for indirect contempt:
to a lawful writ, process, order, decision,
subpoena, command or injunction of the

 Proceedings may be initiated by the Commission motu proprio, or

commenced by a verified petition.
  A hearing to investigate the charge shall be set. Failure of respondent to
attend the scheduled hearing and to give a satisfactory explanation in
writing will result in his waiver to be present during the hearing.

 Fine of P1,000.00 per day for every act of a person found guilty of indirect
contempt. Damages in addition to fine shall be awarded if contempt
consists of violation of an injunction or omission to do an act which is
within the power of the respondent.

DISGRACEFUL AND IMMORAL CONDUCT

Refers to acts which violate the basic norm of decency, morality and decorum abhorred
and condemned by the society. It refers to conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community.

CLASSIFICATION

a) Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct in the Workplace —

Conduct committed by parties, regardless of marital status, under ANY of

the following circumstances:

1. The disgraceful and immoral conduct was committed in the

workplace in a scandalous manner

2. The disgraceful and immoral conduct was committed by

taking advantage of one's position and/or with the use of
government property and resources

3. The disgraceful and immoral conduct affected the work

performance of the respondents

b) Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct Committed through a

Forbidden Relationship —

The disgraceful and immoral conduct is classified under this

section if the parties are engaged in a relationship forbidden by
law.

c) Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct Committed through

Inherently Immoral Acts —
 Conduct which consists of immoral and deviant acts inherently
forbidden by the basic norms of decency, morality and decorum
such as, but not limited to incest, pedophilia, exhibitionism and
the like, whether committed in a discreet or scandalous manner
within or out of the workplace.

WHO MAY INITIATE COMPLAINT

a) Disgraceful and
Immoral Conduct in the
Workplace
b) Disgraceful and
Immoral Conduct
Through a Forbidden
Relationship
c) Disgraceful and
Immoral Conduct
Committed through
Inherently Immoral Acts
Memorandum Circular No. 15, s. 2010 dated August 5, 2010
• DISCIPLINING
AUTHORITY
• ANY PERSON
• (filed against the married
party) BY ANY
IMMEDIATE MEMBER OF
HIS/HER FAMILY
• DISCIPLINING
AUTHORITY
• ANY PERSON

"Section 1. Definition of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct. — Disgraceful

and Immoral Conduct refers to an act which violates the basic norm of
decency, morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the society. It
refers to conduct which is willful, flagrant or shameless and which shows a
moral indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable members of the
community.

"Section 2. Complaint for Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct; Who May

Initiate/File: — A complaint for Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct may be
initiated by the disciplining authority or filed by any person against the parties
involved, whether married or unmarried.

"Section 3. Complaint for Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct Against

Unmarried Government Personnel. — Unmarried government employees who
do not have any existing legal impediments to contract marriage may not be
made liable for the administrative offense of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct
unless the conduct consists of immoral and deviant acts which are inherently
forbidden by the basic norms of decency, morality and decorum such as, but
not limited to incest, pedophilia, exhibitionism and the like.
 "Section 4. Manner of Commission of the Offense — The acts consisting of
the administrative offense of Disgraceful and Immoral conduct may be
committed in a scandalous or discreet manner, within or out of the workplace.

DISHONESTY

Has been defined as a form of conduct which connotes untrustworthiness and lack of
integrity, a disposition to lie, cheat deceive, betray."

[BALAGSO, Teodoro Jr. L., et al., CSC Resolution No. 99-1085, May 21, 1999 citing
BRIONES, Rolando A., CAS Res. 97-3740 dated August 28, 1997]

"The concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a

disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray and an intent to violate the
truth."

[Section 1. RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY; CSC

Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006]

Classification of DISHONESTY

a) Serious Dishonesty — Punishable by dismissal from the service

b) Less Serious Dishonesty

1st offense — suspension from 6 months and 1 day to 1

year

2nd offense — dismissal from the service

[Section 2, RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY, CSC

Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006]

c) Simple Dishonesty —

1st offense — suspension of 1 month and 1 day to 6

months

2nd offense — suspension of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year

3rd offense — dismissal from the service

[Section 2, RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY, CSC

Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006]
The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of
the dishonest act would constitute the offense of SERIOUS DISHONESTY:

a) The dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the
Government

b) The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the

dishonest act

c) Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly

involves property, accountable forms or money for which he is directly
accountable and the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft
and corruption

d) The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the respondent

e) The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in

the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment

f) The dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions

g) The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination irregularity or fake

Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to impersonation, cheating and
use of crib sheets

h) Other analogous circumstances

[Section 3, RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY, CSC

Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006]

The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of
the dishonest act would constitute the offense of LESS SERIOUS DISHONESTY:

a) The dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government which is
not so serious as to qualify under the immediately preceding classification

b) The respondent did not take advantage of his/her position in committing the
dishonest act

c) Other analogous circumstances

[Section 4, RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY, CSC

Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4. 2006]
The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of
the dishonest act would constitute the offense of SIMPLE DISHONESTY:

a) The dishonest act did not cause damage or prejudice to the government

b) The dishonest act has no direct relation to or does not involve the duties and
responsibilities of the respondent

c) In falsification of any official document where the information falsified is

not related to his/her employment

d) That the dishonest act did not result in any gain or benefit to the offender

e) Other analogous circumstances

[Section 5, RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY, CSC

Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006]

GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY

Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative,

not an absolute term, and its application depends upon the situation of the parties, and the
degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably impose

[US vs. JUANILLO, 23 Phil. 212]

GRAVE VS. SIMPLE

In Grave Misconduct, as distinguished from Simple Misconduct, the elements of

corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules, must
be manifest."

[LANDRITO vs. CSC, 223 SCRA 564 Citing In Re: Impeachment of Horilleno, 43 Phil.
212 (1922)]

BEING NOTORIOUSLY UNDESIRABLE

This offense is based mainly on the general reputation of an employee for being difficult
to work with, due to his/her quarrelsome attitude and/or repeated infractions of office
rules. The focus in this offense is the totality of his conduct in office and not his liability
for the individual acts."

[LAGUILLES, Cesar P., CSC Resolution No. 99-0026, January 6, 1999]

CONVICTION OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE

Everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.

[In Re: Basa, 41 Phil 275; In Re: Isada, 60 Phil. 915]

MORAL TURPITUDE

Everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.

"It (moral turpitude) implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact
that it is punishable by law or not. It is not the prohibition by statute that fixes
moral turpitude but the nature of the act itself."

(ROBREDILLO, Mario, CSC Resolution No. 00-0657, March 10, 2000 citing DELA
TORRE vs. COMELEC, 258 SCRA 483]

FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

Falsification as a rule is the misrepresentation of a thing, fact or condition, certifying that

a thing is true when it is not, whether one has the right to make the representation or
certificate. As applied to a public document, in order that said act be punishable, it is
immaterial whether it has caused damage to a third person or not. This is because
falsification of public documents is controlled by other principles distinct from those
applicable to private documents.

[U.S. vs. BUENAVENTURA, 1 Phil. 433]

ENGAGING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN PARTISAN POLITICAL

ACTIVITIES BY ONE HOLDING NON-POLITICAL OFFICE

The term "election campaign" or 'partisan political activity' refers to an act designed to
promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office.

[BUGTONG, Diosdado, CSC Res. No. 97-0807, January 28, 1997 citing Section 79 of
the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Bilang 881)]

NEPOTISM

All appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in any
branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned and controlled
corporations, made in favor of a relative {within the third degree} of the appointing or
recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons
exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited.
[DEBULGADO vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 238 SCRA 184]

LIMITATIONS ON APPOINTMENTS

No person shall be appointed in the career service of the local government if he is related
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to the appointing and
recommending authority.

[Section 79, Local Government Code of 1991]

DISLOYALTY TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND TO THE

FILIPINO PEOPLE

It consists of abandonment or renunciation of one's loyalty to the government or

advocating the overthrow of the Government.

[Par. 7, Section 8, Presidential Decree No. 971, July 27, 1976]

OPPRESSION

The Commission has defined oppression as an act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction,
domination or excessive use of authority.

[CSC Resolution: No. 95-2125, March 21 1995]

INEFFICIENCY AND INCOMPETENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF

OFFICIAL DUTY

Incompetency — has been defined as the manifest lack of adequate ability and fitness for
the satisfactory performance of official duties. This has reference to any physical, moral
or intellectual quality the lack of which substantially incapacitates one to perform the
duties of an officer.

[Sec. 8, Pres. Decree No. 971]

FREQUENT UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES, OR TARDINESS IN REPORTING

FOR DUTY, LOAFING OR FREQUENT UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES FROM
DUTY DURING REGULAR OFFICE HOURS

An officer or employee shall be considered habitually absent if he incurs unauthorized

absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit under the Leave Law for
at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the
year.
[Section 22 (q), Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
292 (Administrative Code of 1987)]

REFUSAL TO PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTY

"Any act conduct of officer or tribunal under a duty to perform, signifying

intention not to perform . . ."

[Word & Phrases, Volume 36-A, Copyright, 1962]

GROSS INSUBORDINATION

Is a deliberate and willful refusal to comply with a lawful request or order of a higher
authority. It involves disregard of proper authority and a refusal to obey that authority, a
willful disrespect of it."

[SOBREPEÑA, Carmelita G., CSC Resolution No. 001288. May 30, 2000 citing
HARVEY, Tammang A., CSC Resolution No. 98-2225 August 21, 1998]

HABITUAL DRUNKENNESS

One who frequently and repeatedly becomes intoxicated by excessive indulgence in

intoxicating liquor so as to acquire a fixed habit and an involuntary tendency to become
intoxicated as often as the temptation is presented, even though he remains sober for days
or even weeks at a time.

[Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

FREQUENT UNAUTHORIZED TARDINESS (HABITUAL TARDINESS)

An employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the

number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) months in a semester or at
least two (2) consecutive months during the year.

[Section 22. (q) Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
292 (Administrative Code of 1987)]

Memorandum Circular No. 16, s. 2010 dated August 6, 2010

1. Any officer or employee who incurs undertime, regardless of the number of

minutes/hours, ten (10) times a month for at least two months in a semester shall
be liable for Simple Misconduct and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
the Service, as the case may be; and
 2. Any officer or employee who incurs undertime, regardless of the number of
minutes/hours, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) consecutive months
during the year shall be liable for Simple Misconduct and/or Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the Service, as the case may be.

Memorandum Circular No. 17, s. 2010 dated August 6, 2010

1. Any officer or employee who is absent in the morning is considered to be

tardy and is subject to the provisions on habitual tardiness; and

2. Any officer or employee who is absent in the afternoon is considered to have

incurred undertime subject to the provisions on undertime.

WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY JUST DEBTS

"Just debts" shall apply only to:

1. Claims adjudicated by a court of law, or

2. Claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.

[Section 22. Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292
(Administrative Code of 1987)]

Definition:

The term Sexual Harassment has varying definitions depending on what type of case will
be instituted. If the case is criminal in nature, the definition under RA 7877 applies, thus,
all elements thereof must be present for purposes of conviction. On the other hand, the
administrative offense of sexual harassment is defined under the Administrative
Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment cases promulgated by the Civil service
Commission (CSC Resolution No. 01-0940) which conspicuously deviated from the
stringent requirements of RA 7877 insofar as the elements of the offense are concerned.

Sexual Harassment as a criminal offense is defined as a work, education or training

related act committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the
employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor or any person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other,
regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by
the object of said act.

Sexual Harassment as an administrative offense is defined as an act, or a series of acts,

involving any unwelcome sexual advance, request or demand for a sexual favor, or other
verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, committed by a government employee or
official in a work related, training or education related environment of the person
complained of.

Note that the two definitions are substantially the same except that in the administrative
sexual harassment cases the element of moral ascendancy, influence or authority on the
part of the offender is not present.

Evolution of the rules on sexual harassment cases:

1. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1994 (CSC Res. No. 94-2854)

Based on the broad mandate given by RA 6713 and EO 292 to the CSC to
adopt positive measures to promote the observance of the standards of
personal conduct of officials and employees in the civil service and to
adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness
and courtesy in the civil service.

Was issued before the enactment of RA 7877

It characterizes sexual harassment as either grave misconduct, conduct

prejudicial to the best interest of the service or simple misconduct.

In its definition of sexual harassment the element of moral ascendancy,

influence or authority of the offender was not present.

2. RA 7877 (1995)

Defines and penalizes the crime of sexual harassment in workplaces and

educational or training institutions in public and private sectors and
considers the presence of moral ascendancy, influence or authority on the
part of the perpetrator as an element of the crime.

Defines the obligations of employers, heads of offices or educational

institutions in addressing sexual harassment including the creation of the
Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI).

Makes the employer or the head of office liable under certain conditions
for failing to take immediate action after being informed by the victims of
sexual harassment.

Unclear on administrative sanctions.

3. CSC Resolution No. 95-6161

Was issued pursuant to RA 7877 for the guidance of the CSC personnel.

Adopts both the definitions of MC 19 and RA 7877 and likewise

considers authority, influence or moral ascendancy as elements of the
offense.

4. Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases

Treated sexual harassment administrative cases as different in nature from

the criminal cases of sexual harassment.

Considered RA 7877 as dealing only with the criminal cases of sexual

harassment while adopting some of its features such as the creation per
agency of the CODI.

Declared that moral ascendancy is not an element of the administrative

offense.

Categorized different acts of administrative sexual harassment cases.

Other Related Laws:

1. RA 6725 — An Act Strengthening the Prohibition on

Discrimination against Women

2. RA 7192 — Women in Development and Nation Building

Act

3. RA 8353 — The Anti Rape Law of 1997

4. RA 8505 — Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of

1998

5. The Child Abuse Law

6. The Revised Penal Code which classifies the acts that may
constitute Sexual Harassment as follows:

a. Unjust Vexation — Any human conduct which,

although not productive of some physical or material harm
would, however, unjustly annoy, vex, irritate, torment,
distress or disturb the mind of an innocent person to whom
it is directed. Violence and intimidation are not necessary.
 b. Slander by Deed

c. Acts of Lasciviousness

d. Oral Defamation

e. Coercion

Sexual Harassment: A threat in the workplace

Sexual harassment is recognized as a violation of human rights, morale and efficiency in

the workplace, it violates as well merit and fitness principle and creates a hostile
environment which adversely affect productive performance.

In 1999 Convention on Violence in the World of Work, ILO, Geneva, sexual harassment
had been categorically tagged as one of the threats in the workplace. The Convention's
declaration states as follows:

"Sexual harassment violates a worker's right to job security and equal

opportunity. It can create working conditions that are hazardous to the
psychological and physical well being of workers. It also creates a poisoned
work atmosphere that can disempower and demoralize workers. . ."

". . . When ignored, sexual harassment exacts a high cost to a company in

terms of loss of productivity, high absenteeism among affected employees,
disruptions of work from long term sick leaves, retraining of new personnel,
low morale. . ."

True enough, sexual harassment cases in the Philippines often results in the resignation of
the victim, demoralization of employees and hostile working environment to the
prejudice of the service.

Evidence in Administrative Sexual Harassment cases:

Sexual harassment has no equivalent term in the Filipino language. We use terms such as
"tsansing, "abuso, "paglapastangan, "ginamit and binastos" to refer to various forms or
experiences of sexual abuse or molestation, including acts falling within the concept of
sexual harassment.

"Tsansing" or "chancing'' appears to be often used to refer to acts of sexual harassment. It

is also loaded with assumptions and perspectives about the acts to which they refer. It is a
derivative of the English word "chance" which seems to say that the acts are accidental,
not deliberate, or are made to appear as such.
Another message conveyed seems to be that these acts are minor or trivial thus almost
compelling us to be dismissive about them. Not surprisingly, we call as tsansing that
seemingly accidental brushing of a man's arm against a woman's breast.

Indeed, these acts may appear to be accidental or innocent or excusable to the outsider,
particularly when the form in which they come does not involve our concept of "erotic"
contact, thus allowing conflicting interpretations of the significance of the act.

On the part of the person who experienced it, the characterization of the act as tsansing
may lead to ambivalence about what it was the she actually experienced despite that,
deep down, she felt some discomfort or knew there was something wrong about the act.

The trivialization of sexual harassment is evident in people's common responses to

complaints of abuse. Responses like, "Wala yon, binigyan mo lang ng malisya", "Maliit
na bagay pinapalaki mo", "Makukuha lang yan sa paligo", "Wala namang nawala sa yo",
"Ipasadiyos mo na lang" are classic expressions of our cultural values and our acceptance
of these acts as daily, normal occurrences.

The effect of these responses to victims is often discouraging, if not devastating. It makes
the victim doubt the validity of their experience and fear non-belief if ever they report, as
well as aggravates their feeling of shame about the experience. It often leads to delay in
reporting the abuse or silences victims effectively.

The term "Sexual Favor" is viewed as excluding other sexual advances. It seems that
what are clearly "sexual" acts are those acts related to sexual relating or sexual intimacy
— kissing on the lips, fondling of breasts and physical contact with the penis or vagina.

The characterization of the act as "sexual" or "non-sexual" often arises as an issue when
the acts involved are what many consider as ambivalent acts — placing an arm around
another's shoulders, a look or a stare (dirty or malicious), comments about a person's
looks or body (compliment or lewd) or about sex, queries about a person's sex life, etc.

The problem is the concept of "sexual". What makes conduct "sexual harassment" is not
so much dependent on the part of the body touched or whether there was physical
contact. The key is the character of the conduct.

Conduct is "sexual harassment" when the sex and sexuality of the person and everything
culturally related to it is made the object of the conduct, as something desired to be
obtained or trivialized with, whether through physical, verbal and other forms of conduct.

The "Filipina of decent repute" doctrine

This doctrine reasons out that no young and decent Filipina would publicly admit that she
was ravished and her honor tainted unless such was true, for it would be instinctive for
her to protect her honor and that considering the inbred modesty and the consequent
revulsion of a Filipina against airing in public things that affect her honor, it is hard to
conceive that complainant would reveal and admit the ignominy she had undergone if it
were not true. (CSC Res. No. 000033)

The normal reaction standard

There is no standard behavior for persons confronted with a shocking incident and that
the workings of a human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and
cause different reactions. (People vs. Layagum, 261 SCRA 339) However, in deciding
sexual harassment cases, the CSC used the normal reaction standard. It found the
complainant's behavior after the alleged incident — that of signing her name on the
attendance logbook and acting as if nothing happened — as contrary to the normal
reaction of a person who had just been sexually harassed.

The Commission opined that a person who had been sexually assaulted would not be
concerned with anything else but securing her safely (CSC Res. No. 983068).

Testimonial credibility

As the case usually involves two persons, the offender and the offended party, the truth
could be discerned from the manner by which the parties give their testimonies during the
hearing. In one case, the Commission considered straightforward, spontaneous, detailed,
convincing and natural testimony as indicia of truthfulness (CSC Res. No. 990835).

Delay in reporting

Strictly speaking, there is no time period within which he or she is expected to complain
through proper channels. The time to do so may vary, depending upon the needs,
circumstances and more importantly, the emotional threshold of the employee (Phil.
Aeolus Automotive United Corp. vs. NLRC and Rosalinda Cortez, GR No. 124617 (April
28, 2000).

The CSC itself did not consider as fatal complainant's delay in reporting, the reasons for
which were given (CSC Res. No. 973277). But in two cases, the Commission considered
reporting to the authorities at once as indicia of truthfulness (CSC Res. No. 990436, CSC
Res. No. 966213)

The Rules of Court apply suppletorily to proceedings in administrative bodies, hence,

portions thereof pertaining to evidence may be invoked in administrative sexual
harassment cases.
The Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases (CSC Resolution
No. 01-0940)

I. Situs of the Offense

Section 4. Sexual harassment may take place:

1. in the premises of the workplace or office or of the school or

training institution;

2. in any place where the parties were found as a result of work or

education or training responsibilities or relations;

3. at work or education or training-related social functions;

4. while on official business outside the office or school or training

institution or during work or school or training-related travel;

5. at official conferences, fora, symposia or training sessions; or

6. by telephone, cellular phone, fax machine or electronic mail.

II. Forms of Commission

Section 5. The following are illustrative forms of sexual harassment:

(a) Physical

i. Malicious Touching;

ii. Overt sexual advances;

iii. Gestures with lewd insinuation.

(b) Verbal, such as but not limited to, requests or demands for sexual
favors, and lurid remarks;

(c) Use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters or writing notes with

sexual underpinnings;

(d) Other form analogous to the forgoing.

III. Persons Liable

 Section 6. Any government official or employee, regardless of sex, is liable for
sexual harassment when he/she:

(a) directly participates in the execution of any act of sexual

harassment as defined by these Rules;

(b) induces or directs another or others to commit sexual harassment as

defined by these Rules;

(c) cooperates in the commission of sexual harassment by another

through an act without which the sexual harassment would not have been
accomplished; or

(d) cooperates in the commission of sexual harassment by another

through previous or simultaneous acts.

IV. Committee on Decorum and Investigation

Section 7. A Committee on Decorum and Investigation shall be created in all

national or local agencies of the government, state colleges and universities,
including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter. The
Committee shall perform the following functions:

(a) Receive complaints of sexual harassment;

(b) Investigate sexual harassment complaints in accordance with the

prescribed procedure;

(c) Submit a report of its findings with the corresponding

recommendation to the disciplining authority for decision;

(d) Lead in the conduct of discussions about sexual harassment within

the agency or institution to increase understanding and prevent incidents
of sexual harassment;

Localized Committees on Decorum and Investigation established in the regional

or field offices, as the case may be, of the agency or institution shall have the
same functions as stated above and shall submit the report of investigation with
its recommendation directly to the disciplining authority.

When a member of the Committee is the complainant or the person complained of

in a sexual harassment case, he/she shall be disqualified from being a member of
the Committee.
 Section 8. Composition. — In a work-related environment, a Committee on
Decorum and Investigation shall be composed of at least one (1) representative
each from the management, the accredited union, if any, the second level
employees, and from the first level employees, duly selected by the unit
concerned.

In an educational or training institution, the Committee shall be composed of at

least one (1) representative from the administration, the trainers, teachers,
instructors, professors or coaches, and students or trainees, as the case may be,
duly selected by the level concerned.

Section 9. The agency may formulate its own rules governing the term of
office of its members which should be more than two years, and other matters
pertaining to the functions of the Committee not otherwise provided in these
Rules.

V. Pre-filing SOP in attending to victims of SH

Section 10. The Pre-filing Stage. — The agency may adopt mechanisms to
provide assistance to an alleged victim of sexual harassment which may include
counseling, referral to an agency offering professional help, and advice on options
available before the filing of the complaint.

VI. Standard Procedural Requirements

Section 11. The procedural rules provided hereunder are the standard
requirements in handling a sexual harassment case.

VI. Standard Procedural Requirements

Section 12. Complaint. —

(a) The complaint may be filed at any time with the disciplining
authority of the office or agency, or with the Committee on Decorum and
Investigation. Upon receipt of the complaint by the disciplining authority
of the office or agency, the same shall be transmitted to the Committee on
Decorum and Investigation, if there is any. In the absence of a Committee
on Decorum and Investigation, the head office or agency shall
immediately cause the creation of Committee on Decorum and
Investigation in accordance with the law and rules, and transmit the
complaint to the Committee.
 (b) The complaint must be in writing, signed and sworn to by the
complainant. It shall contain the following:

1. the full name and address of the complainant;

2. the full name, address, and position of the respondent;

3. a brief statement of the relevant facts;

4. evidence, in support of the complainant, if any;

5. a certification of non-forum shopping.

In the absence of any one of the aforementioned requirements, the

complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice to its refiling.

Where the complaint is not under oath, the complainant shall be

summoned by the Committee to swear to the truth of the
allegations in the complainant.

(d) Withdrawal of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings shall

not preclude the Committee from proceeding with the investigation where
there is obvious truth or merit to the allegations in the complaint or where
there is documentary or direct evidence that can prove the guilt of the
person complained of.

Section 13. Action on the Complaint. — Upon receipt of a complaint that is

sufficient in form and substance, the Committee on Decorum and Investigation
shall require the person complained of to submit a Counter-Affidavit/Comment
under oath within three (3) days from receipt of the notice, furnishing a copy
thereof to the complainant, otherwise the Counter-Affidavit/Comment shall be
considered as not filed.

Section 14. Preliminary Investigation. — A preliminary investigation shall be

conducted by the Committee on Decorum and Investigation. The investigation
involves the ex parte examination of documents submitted by the complainant
and the person complained of, as well as documents readily available from other
government offices.

During the preliminary investigation, the parties may submit affidavits and
counter-affidavits.
Upon receipt of the counter-affidavit or comment under oath, the Committee on
Decorum and Investigation may now recommend whether a prima facie case
exists to warrant the issuance of a formal charge.

During preliminary investigation, proceedings before the Committee on Decorum

and Investigation shall be held under strict confidentiality.

Section 15. Duration of the Investigation. — A preliminary investigation shall

commence not later than five (5) days from receipt of the complaint by the
Committee on Decorum and Investigation and shall be terminated within fifteen
(15) working days thereafter.

Section 16. Investigation Report. — Within five (5) working days from the
termination of the preliminary investigation, the Committee on Decorum and
Investigation shall submit the Investigation Report and the complete records of
the case to the disciplining authority.

Section 17. Decision or Resolution After Preliminary Investigation. —

If a prima facie case is established during the investigation, a formal charge shall
be issued by the disciplining authority within three (3) working days from receipt
of the Investigation Report.

In the absence of a prima facie case, the complaint shall be dismissed within the
same period.

Section 18. Formal Charge.

— After finding a prima facie case, the disciplining authority shall

formally charge the person complained of.

— The formal charge shall contain a specification of the charge(s), a brief

statement of material or relevant facts, accompanied by certified true
copies of the documentary evidence, if any, sworn statements covering the
testimony of witnesses, a directive to answer the charge(s) in writing
under oath in not less than seventy-two hours from receipt thereof, an
advice for the respondent to indicate in his/her answer whether or not
he/she elects a formal investigation of the charge(s), and a notice that
he/she is entitled to be assisted by a counsel of his/her choice.

If the respondent has submitted his/her comment and counter-affidavits during the
preliminary investigation, he/she shall be given the opportunity to submit
additional evidence.
The Committee on Decorum and Investigation shall not entertain requests for
clarification, bills of particulars or motions to dismiss which are obviously
designed to delay the administrative proceeding. If any of these pleadings is filed
by the respondent, the same shall be considered as part of his/her answer which
he/she may file within the remaining period for filing the answer.

Section 19. Answer. — The answer which must be in writing and under oath,
shall be specific and shall contain material facts and applicable laws, if any,
including documentary evidence. sworn statements covering testimonies of
witnesses, if there be any, in support of respondent's case. If shall also include a
statement indicating whether he/she elects a formal investigation.

Section 20. Failure to File an Answer. — If the respondent fails or refuses to

file his/her answer to the formal charge within seventy-two (72) hours from
receipt thereof without justifiable cause, he/she shall be considered to have
waived his right thereto and formal investigation may commence.

Section 21. Preventive Suspension. —

— Upon petition of the complainant or motu proprio upon the

recommendation of the Committee on Decorum and Investigation, at any
time after the service of the Formal Charge to the respondent, the proper
disciplining authority may order the preventive suspension of the
respondent during the formal investigation, if there are reasons to believe,
that he/she is probably guilty of the charges which would warrant his/her
removal from the service.

An order of preventive suspension may be issued to temporarily remove the

respondent from the scene of his/her misfeasance or malfeasance and to preclude
the possibility of his/her exerting undue influence or pressure on the witnesses
against him/her or tampering of documentary evidence on file with this office.

Section 22. Duration of Preventive Suspension. — When the administrative

case against the respondent under preventive suspension is not finally decided by
the disciplining authority within the period of ninety (90) days after the date of
his/her preventive suspension, unless otherwise provided by special law, he/she
shall be automatically reinstated into the service:

Provided, that when the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault,
negligence or petition of the respondent, the period of delay should not be
included in the counting of the ninety (90) calendar days period preventive
suspension:
Provided, further, That should the respondent be on paternity/maternity leave,
said preventive suspension shall be deferred or interrupted until such time that
said leave has been fully enjoyed.

Section 23. Remedies from the Order of Prevention Suspension. — The

respondent may file a motion for reconsideration with the disciplining authority
or may elevate the same to the Civil Service Commission by way of an appeal
within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.

Section 24. Conduct of Formal Investigation. — Although the respondent does

not request a formal investigation, one shall nevertheless be conducted by the
Committee on Decorum and Investigation if it deems such investigation as
necessary to decide the case judiciously.

The investigation shall be held not earlier than five (5) days nor later than ten (10)
days from receipt of the respondent's answer. Said investigation shall be finished
within thirty (30) days from the issuance of the formal charge or the receipt of the
answer unless the period is extended by the disciplining authority in meritorious
cases.

Section 25. Pre-hearing Conference. —

At the commencement of the formal investigation, the Committee on Decorum

and Investigation may conduct a pre-hearing conference for the parties to appear,
consider and agree on any of the following:

a. stipulation of facts;

b. simplification of issues;

c. identification and marking of evidence of the parties;

d. waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;

e. limiting the number of witnesses, and their names;

f. dates of subsequent hearings; and

g. such other matters as may aid in the prompt and just resolution of the
case.

The parties may submit position paper/memoranda and submit the case for
resolution based on the result of the pre-hearing conference without any need for
further hearing.
Section 26. Continuous Hearing Until Terminated; Postponement. —
Hearings hall be conducted on the hearing dates set by the Committee on
Decorum and investigation or as agreed upon during a pre-hearing conference.

Where no pre-hearing conference is conducted, the parties, their counsels and

witnesses, if any, shall be given a notice of at least five (5) days before the first
scheduled hearing specifying the time, date and place of the said hearing and
subsequent hearings. Thereafter, the schedule of hearings previously set shall be
strictly followed without further notice. A party shall be granted only three (3)
postponements upon oral or written requests. A further postponement may be
granted only upon written request and subject to the discretion of the Committee
on Decorum and investigation.

If the respondent fails to appear during the scheduled hearings despite due notice,
the investigation shall proceed ex-parte and the respondent is deemed to have
waived his right to be present and to submit evidence in his favor during those
hearings.

Section 27. Preliminary Matters. — At the start of the hearing, the Committee
on Decorum and Investigation shall note the appearances of the parties and shall
proceed with the reception of evidence for the complainant.

If the respondent appears without the aid of a counsel, he/she shall be deemed to
have waived his/her right to counsel.

Before taking the testimony of a witness, the Committee on Decorum and

Investigation shall place him/her under oath and then take his/her name, address,
civil status, age, and place of employment.

Section 28. Appearance of Parties. —

Any person representing any of the parties before any hearing or investigation
shall manifest orally or in writing his/her appearance for either the respondent or
complainant, stating his/her full name and exact address where he/she can be
served with notices and other documents. Any pleading or appearance made
without complying with the above stated requirements shall not be recognized.

Section 29. Order of Hearing. — Unless the Committee on Decorum and

Investigation directs otherwise, the order of hearing shall be as follows:

a. The complainant shall present evidence in support of the charge;

 b. The respondent shall then offer evidence in support of his/her
defense;

c. The complainant may then offer rebuttal evidence, and the

respondent, sur-rebuttal evidence.

Every witness may be examined in the following order:

a. Direct examination by the proponent;

b. Cross-examination by the opponent;

c. Re-direct examination by the opponent;

d. Re-cross examination by the opponent.

A sworn statement of a witnesses, properly identified and affirmed by the witness

before the Committee on Decorum and Investigation shall constitute his/her direct
testimony.

When the presentation of evidence has been concluded, the parties shall formally
offer their evidence either orally or in writing and thereafter objections thereto
may also be made either orally or in writing. Thereafter, both parties may be
given time to submit their respective memorandum which in no case shall be
beyond five (5) days after the termination of the investigation. Failure to submit
the memorandum within the given period shall be considered a waiver thereof.

Section 30. Objections. — All objections raised during the hearing shall be
resolved by the Committee on Decorum and Investigation. However, objections
that cannot be ruled upon by the Committee shall be noted with the information
that the same shall be included in the memorandum of the concerned party to be
ruled upon by the proper disciplining authority.

The Committee on Decorum and Investigation shall accept all evidence deemed
material and relevant to the case. In case of doubt, the Committee on Decorum
and Investigation shall allow the admission of evidence subject to the objection
interposed against its admission.

Section 31. Markings. — All documentary evidence or exhibits shall be

properly marked by letters (A, B, C, etc.) if presented by the respondent. These
shall form part of the complete records of the case.

Section 32. Request for Subpoena. — If a party desires the attendance of a

witness or the production of documents of things, he/she shall make a request for
the issuance of the necessary subpoena, at least three (3) days before the
scheduled hearing.

Section 33. Issuance of Subpoena. — The Committee on Decorum and

Investigation may issue subpoena ad testificandum to compel the attendance of
witnesses and subpoena duces tecum for the production of documents or objects.

Section 34. Records of Proceedings. — The proceedings of the formal

investigation must be recorded either through shorthand or stenotype or by any
other method.

Section 35. Effect of the Pendency of an Administrative Case. — The

pendency of any administrative case shall not disqualify the respondent for
promotion or from claming maternity/paternity benefits. For this purpose, an
administrative case shall be construed as pending when the disciplining authority
has issued a formal charge.

Section 36. Formal Investigation Report. —

Within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the formal investigation, a report
containing a narration of the material facts established during the investigation,
the findings and the evidence supporting said findings, as well as the
recommendations, shall be submitted by the Committee on Decorum and
Investigation to the disciplining authority. The complete records of the case shall
be attached to the Report of Investigation.

The complete records shall be systematically and chronologically arranged,

paged, and securely bound to prevent loss. A table of contents shall be prepared.
Whoever is in charge of the transmittal of the complete records shall be held
responsible for any loss or suppression of pages thereof.

Section 37. When Case is Decided. — The disciplining authority shall render
his decision on the case within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Report on
Investigation.

Section 38. Finality of Decisions. — A decision rendered by heads of agencies

where a penalty of suspension for not more than thirty (30) days or a fine in an
amount not exceeding thirty (30) days salary is imposed, shall be final and
executory.

However, if the penalty imposed is suspension exceeding thirty (30) days or a fine
exceeding thirty (30) days salary, the same shall be final and executory after the
 lapse of the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration or an
appeal and no such pleading has been filed.

VII. Classification of Acts of Sexual Harassment (Grave, Less Grave and

Light)

Section 53. Sexual harassment is classified as grave, less grave and light
offenses. —

A. Grave Offenses shall include, but are not limited to:

1. unwanted touching of private parts of the body (genitalia,

buttocks and breast);

2. sexual assault;

3. malicious touching;

4. requesting for sexual favor in exchange for employment,

promotion, local or foreign travels, favorable working conditions
or assignments, a passing grade, the granting of honors or
scholarship, or the grant of benefits or payment of a stipend or
allowance; and

5. other analogous cases.

B. Less Grave Offenses shall include, but are not limited to:

1. unwanted touching or brushing against a victim's body;

2. pinching not falling under grave offenses:

3. derogatory or degrading remarks or innuendoes directed

toward the members of one sex, or ones sexual orientation or used
to describe a person;

4. verbal abuse with sexual overtones; and

5. other analogous cases.

C. The following shall be considered Light Offenses;

1. surreptitiously looking or staring a look of a person's private

part or worn undergarments;
 2. telling sexist/smutty jokes or sending these through text,
electronic mail or other similar means, causing embarrassment or
offense and carried out after the offender has been advised that
they are offensive or embarrassing or even without such advise,
when they are by their nature clearly embarrassing, offensive or
vulgar;

3. malicious leering or ogling;

4. the display of sexually offensive pictures, materials or

graffiti;

5. unwelcome inquiries or comments about a person's sex life;

6. unwelcome sexual flirtation, advances, propositions;

7. making offensive hand or body gestures at an employee;

8. persistent unwanted attention with sexual overtones;

9. unwelcome phone calls with sexual overtones causing

discomfort, embarrassment, offense or insult to the receiver; and

10. other analogous cases.

VIII. Administrative Liabilities

Section 54. The head of office who fails to act within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of any complaint for sexual harassment properly filed against any
employee in that office shall be charged with Neglect of Duty.

Section 55. Any person who is found guilty of sexual harassment shall, after the
investigation, be meted the penalty corresponding to the gravity and seriousness
of the offense.

Section 56. The penalties for light, less grave, and grave offenses are as
follows:

A. For light offenses:

1st offense — Reprimand

2nd offense — Fine or suspension not exceeding thirty (30) days
3rd offense — Dismissal
 B. For less grave offenses:

1st offense — Fine or suspension of not less than thirty (30) days
and not exceeding six (6) months
2nd offense — Dismissal

C. For grave offenses: Dismissal

Section 57. If the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts,
the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge
or count and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.