Dear PAO,
I am working as a senior cashier in one of the government offices in our province. During an audit, missing funds were discovered. I was administratively charged for the missing funds. Yesterday, I received our office’s decision finding me guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service, and dismissing me from service.
When I inquired from the human resources office why the penalty imposed on me was so harsh, considering my 28 years of government service and that this was only a one-time incident, I was told that I committed two grave offenses that merit dismissal. Is my office correct in charging me with the two offenses (grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service) for a single alleged violation?
Attila
Dear Attila,
Before delving into your query, it is necessary to define the two administrative offenses with which you have been charged.
The Supreme Court defined grave misconduct as “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer [with attendant] additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence (CSC vs. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521, 30 September 2005, penned by Honorable Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio). On the other hand, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service refers to “any misconduct which need not be related or connected to the public officers’ official functions but tends to tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office.” (Largo vs. CA, G.R. No. 177244, 20 November 2007, penned by Honorable Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago)
While both offenses seemingly cover different scopes of wrongdoing or transgression, the Supreme Court has observed from legal precedents that many acts and omissions falling under the offense “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service” also qualify under one or more administrative offenses enumerated under the 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS). Hence, erring public officials or employees have been previously held liable for the said offense in addition to other administrative offenses, for the same complained act or omission so long as the purported violation tarnishes the image or integrity of the public service.
However, in the recent ruling in Nicolas Sr. vs. Task Force Abono-Field Investigation Office (G.R. No. 246114, 26 July 2023), penned by Honorable Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr., the Supreme Court clarified that a public officer/employee who is found liable for an administrative offense specifically enumerated under the civil service rules, can no longer be held liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for the same act/omission. An excerpt from the Decision reads:
“Based on the foregoing discussions, the Court hereby holds that when erring public officers or employees are found liable for an administrative offense specifically enumerated under the applicable Civil Service Rules, they can no longer be held liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for the same act/omission.”
Likewise, the same ruling defines what constitutes as “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service” and sets out the delineating guidelines on its applicability in administrative cases, to wit:
“Finally, for the guidance of the bench, the bar, and the public, the Court sets the following guidelines in the application of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in administrative cases:
“(a) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service need not be related to the performance of official duty, as long as the act/omission subject of the administrative complaint tarnish the image or integrity of the public service.
“(b) Nonetheless, in the evaluation of the charge/s and the evidence against the respondent, the act/omission must not already constitute as an administrative offense under the URACCS or RRACCS, as the case may be.
“xxx”
Applying this to your case, your employer was, therefore, incorrect in finding that you were guilty of both offenses — grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service. Given that grave misconduct is listed as an administrative offense under the 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS), then, you must no longer be additionally charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
