DISHONESTY the wrong information since they almost have

JEROME JAPSON v. CIVIL SERVICE an identical address.

COMMISSION
G.R. No. 189479 | April 12, 2011  A case for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct,
and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
RULE 1.01, CANON 1 of the Service was filed against Japson before
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, the SSS. – FOUND GUILTY.
dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct. RULING OF SSS:
On February 4, 2003, the SSS promulgated a
SUMMARY: decision finding Japson guilty on all counts.
Records show that Japson became the subject of a  The SSS said that while there was nothing
series of complaints SSS linking him to a profiting wrong per se with petitioner letting claimants
venture involving the processing of claims for use his home address for their claims, a
SSS death and funeral benefits while he was perception of material gain is nonetheless
assigned at SSS Baguio City from 1997 to May indubitable. – too evident to be doubted.
1998. o It pointed out that it was highly
improbable for claimants from Isabela
COMPLAINTS: and Nueva Vizcaya, where there are
First complaint was filed by Mina Balanag: also SSS branches, to file their claims
 Sps. Abuan assured that her mother will receive in Abra.
the death benefits of her father in due time. o The most logical conclusion, the SSS
 They demanded a share equivalent to 10% of said, is that they made their claims
the SSS death benefits that will be awarded to through the Spouses Abuan on the
Balanag’s mother. latter’s assurance that these would be
 They received an initial payment of P15,000 as processed at the soonest possible
commission and demanded for P83,000 more time.
for the asking fee of Japson and a certain Atty.
Reynaldo Rodeza. Japson should have been wary of the number of
claims brought to him by the Spouses Abuan, the
Second complaint by Erano Gaspar: SSS said, and he should have avoided these
 He was convince by Shirley Abuan to transfer claims or referred them to the proper branch
his claim for his father’s death benefits pending offices.
at SSS Solano, Nueva Vizcaya to SSS Baguio  The SSS held that it is not necessary to
City. show concrete proof of receiving
 After receiving the check he was informed by consideration therefor, following the
Japson that there was a machine error in the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
computation and was asked to return the
excess of P20,000. Petitioner’s MR was denied in an Order. He then
 Later, in addition he paid P2,000 for the appealed to the CSC. In a resolution, the CSC
assistance rendered. affirmed the SSS decision. The CA ruled that the
CSC resolutions were anchored on substantial
SSS CONDUCTED INVESTIGATION: evidence.
In response to the complaints, the SSS conducted a
series of investigation on the official transactions of ISSUE:
Japson and uncovered details that raised its Whether or not SSS ruling on Japson is of merit. -
suspicion. YES
 In addition to the allegations of the complainant,
SSS found out that the address of claimants to RULING:
the death benefits bore a common address – Factual findings made by quasi-judicial bodies
which is the address of Japson. and administrative agencies when supported by
substantial evidence are accorded great respect
JAPSON’s ANSWER: and even finality by the appellate courts.
 Japson was able to produce receipt as proof of  This is because administrative agencies
remittance by Gaspar excess amount and a possess specialized knowledge and expertise in
Miscellaneous Payment Return Form bearing their respective fields.
an identical date to show the Japson turned  As such, their findings of fact are binding upon
over the amount intact to the SSS. this Court unless there is a showing of grave
 As regards to applications for benefits abuse of discretion, or where it is clearly shown
suspiciously bore his address even though the that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard
applicants were not from Baguio City – he of the evidence on record.
explained that Sps. Abuan might have placed
When an officer or employee is disciplined, the  He was less than forthright in his dealings with
object sought is not the punishment of such the complainants.
officer or employee, but the improvement of the  He allowed the Spouses Abuan to use his
public service and the preservation of the position to make their “clients” believe that
public’s faith and confidence in the government; he could give them undue advantage—over
Acts that go against the established rules of others without the same connection—by
conduct for government personnel bring harm processing their claims faster.
to the civil service, whether they result in loss or  Likewise, his acts imply malevolent intent, and
not. not merely error in judgment.
 Petitioner makes much of the CSC’s finding that  He was aware of what the Spouses Abuan were
he did not financially benefit from the doing and was complicit in the same.
transactions. However, whether or not  At the very least, he failed to stop the illegal
petitioner gained any financial benefit is not trade, and that constitutes willful disregard of
relevant. the laws and rules.
 Neither is the fact that the government did not  Taken together, all the circumstances, as found
actually lose money through incorrect by the SSS and the CSC, show that petitioner
disbursement of public funds. committed acts of Dishonesty, Grave
 When an officer or employee is disciplined, the Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
object sought is not the punishment of such Interest of the Service.
officer or employee, but the improvement of  Prejudice to the service is not only through
the public service and the preservation of wrongful disbursement of public funds or loss of
the public’s faith and confidence in the public property. Greater damage comes with
government. the public’s perception of corruption and
 In administrative cases, the injury sought to be incompetence in the government.
remedied is not merely the loss of public money
or property.
 More significant are the pernicious effects of
such action on the orderly administration of
government services.
 Acts that go against the established rules of
conduct for government personnel bring harm
to the civil service, whether they result in loss or
not.

Petitioner was charged with Dishonesty, Grave

Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service. Dishonesty is defined as
the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter
of fact relevant to one’s office or connected with
the performance of his duty.
 It implies a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or
defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity;
lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle;
and lack of fairness and straightforwardness.

On the other hand, misconduct is a transgression

of some established or definite rule of action, is
a forbidden act, is a dereliction of duty, is willful
in character, and implies wrongful intent and not
mere error in judgment.
 More particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by
the public officer. The term, however, does not
necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent.

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Prejudice

to the service is not only through wrongful
disbursement of public funds or loss of public
property—greater damage comes with the
public’s perception of corruption and
incompetence in the government.
 Petitioner’s acts clearly reflect his dishonesty
and grave misconduct.