Examples of conduct prejudicial to best interest of service

Penalty for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service may be imposed upon an erring public officer as long as the questioned act or conduct taints the image and integrity of the office; and the act need not be related to or connected with the public officer's official functions.[1]
Under our civil service laws, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but the following acts or omissions have been treated as such:
  1. Misappropriation of public funds;
  2. Abandonment of office;
  3. Failure to report back to work without prior notice;
  4. Failure to safekeep public records and property;
  5. Making false entries in public documents;
  6. Falsification of court orders;
  7. A judge's act of brandishing a gun, and threatening the complainants during a traffic altercation;
  8. A court interpreter's participation in the execution of a document conveying complainant's property which resulted in a quarrel in the latter's family;
  9. Selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume Program exemption cards to his officemates during office hours;
  10. A court employee's forging of receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations;
  11. A Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) employee's act of repeatedly changing his IP address, which caused network problems within his office and allowed him to gain access to the entire GSIS network, thus putting the system in a vulnerable state of security;[2]
  12. A public prosecutor's act of signing a motion to dismiss that was not prepared by him, but by a judge;[3] and 
  13. A teacher's act of directly selling a book to her students in violation of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers.[4][5]
In Catipon v. Japson, the petitioner's act of making false entries in his CSPE application was held by the Supreme Court as undoubtedly a conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; the absence of a willful or deliberate intent to falsify or make dishonest entries in his application is immaterial, for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service "may or may not be characterized by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules."[6]

[1] Catipon v. Japson (G.R. No. 191787, June 22, 2015).

[2] See Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Mayordomo, G.R. No. 191218, May 31, 2011, 649 SCRA 667.

[3] Espina v. Cerujano, 573 Phil. 254 (2008).

[4] Pia v. Gervacio, Jr., G.R. No. 172334, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 220.

[5] Catipon v. Japson (G.R. No. 191787, June 22, 2015).

[6] Espina v. Cerujano, 573 Phil. 254 (2008).

Popular Posts