Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    Dishonesty

    Uploaded by

    Wreigh Paris
    Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, an absence of integrity, and a disposition to betray, cheat, deceive, or defraud. The Supreme Court has held that causes for dismissal of a civil servant need not be work-related and that dishonesty in one's private life reflects on their fitness for office. Dishonesty was understood to imply untrustworthiness, a lack of integrity, and intentionally making false statements or attempting deception.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dishonesty

    Uploaded by

    Wreigh Paris
    116 views4 pages
    Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, an absence of integrity, and a disposition to betray, cheat, deceive, or defraud. The Supreme Court has held that causes for dismissal of a civil servant need not be work-related and that dishonesty in one's private life reflects on their fitness for office. Dishonesty was understood to imply untrustworthiness, a lack of integrity, and intentionally making false statements or attempting deception.

    Original Description:

    asd

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, an absence of integrity, and a disposition to betray, cheat, deceive, or defraud. The Supreme Court has held that causes for dismissal of a civil servant need not be work-related and that dishonesty in one's private life reflects on their fitness for office. Dishonesty was understood to imply untrustworthiness, a lack of integrity, and intentionally making false statements or attempting deception.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    116 views4 pages

    Dishonesty

    Uploaded by

    Wreigh Paris
    Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, an absence of integrity, and a disposition to betray, cheat, deceive, or defraud. The Supreme Court has held that causes for dismissal of a civil servant need not be work-related and that dishonesty in one's private life reflects on their fitness for office. Dishonesty was understood to imply untrustworthiness, a lack of integrity, and intentionally making false statements or attempting deception.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    DISHONESTY

    Dishonesty is the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact.


    It signifies absence of integrity, a disposition to betray, cheat, deceive
    or defraud, bad faith. (Arca vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining
    Company, CA-G.R. No. 17679-R, November 24, 1958 cited in
    Armando F. Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, Civil Service
    Commission and Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 124261,
    May 27, 2004; Callejo, Sr., J.)
    We (Supreme Court) have held that the causes which warrant the
    dismissal of a civil servant need not necessarily be work-related or
    committed in the course of the performance of duty by the person
    charged. In Remolana v. Civil Service Commission, we ratiocinated
    that: [I]f a government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty
    of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character
    are not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in
    office. The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest
    official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by
    reason of his government position, he is given more and ample
    opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even
    against offices and entities of the government other than the office
    where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and
    possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of
    his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and
    prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and catuations. The
    private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life.
    Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officeror employee
    to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service.
    (Nera v. Garcia, 106 Phil. 1031 [{1961}] cited in Armando F.
    Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, Civil Service Commission and
    Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 124261, May 27, 2004;
    Callejo, Sr., J.)
    The principle is that when an officer or employee is disciplined, the
    object sought is not the punishment of such public officer or
    employee but the improvement of the public service and the
    preservation of the publics faith and confidence in the government.
    (Bautista v. Negado, 108 Phil. 283 [1960] cited in (Armando F.
    Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, Civil Service Commission and

    Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 124261, May 27, 2004;
    Callejo, Sr., J.)
    .
    Dishonesty was understood to imply a disposition to lie, cheat,
    deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity. (Philippine
    Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Rilloraza, 412 Phil. 118,
    133, June 25, 2001 cited in Abelardo V. Sevilla vs. Lorma F.
    Gocon, G.R. No. 148445, February 16, 2004, Panganiban, J.)
    Dishonesty is intentionally making a false statement in any material
    fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud.
    (Abelardo V. Sevilla vs. Lorma F. Gocon, G.R. No. 148445,
    February 16, 2004, Panganiban, J.)
    In an anomalous government deal, the head of office or the final
    approving authority is usually not considered part of the conspiracy
    because he is not expected to personally examine every single detail,
    painstakingly trace every step and investigate the motive of every
    person involved in the transaction before affixing his signature. In the
    words of the Supreme Court, it would be setting a bad precedent if a
    head of office already plagued by all too common problems in the
    office is suddenly swept into conspiracy conviction. (Arias vs.
    Sandiganbayan, 180 SCRA 309 cited in Dugayon vs. People,
    G.R. NO. 147333, August 12, 2004)

    You might also like