Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 576 views

    Oca Vs Flores

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Erika Beredo Inandan
    Respondent was appointed as a Court Legal Researcher but failed to disclose a previous dismissal from employment on her application documents. The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and found that Respondent had been dismissed from her previous job as a clerk for engaging in a workplace brawl and had been disciplined six times. Respondent claimed she forgot to disclose the information but was found guilty of dishonesty for intentionally concealing material facts about her employment history. As public officials are held to the highest ethical standards, Respondent's failure to provide truthful information on her application warranted her dismissal from service.

    Copyright:

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

    Oca Vs Flores

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Erika Beredo Inandan
    576 views2 pages
    Respondent was appointed as a Court Legal Researcher but failed to disclose a previous dismissal from employment on her application documents. The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and found that Respondent had been dismissed from her previous job as a clerk for engaging in a workplace brawl and had been disciplined six times. Respondent claimed she forgot to disclose the information but was found guilty of dishonesty for intentionally concealing material facts about her employment history. As public officials are held to the highest ethical standards, Respondent's failure to provide truthful information on her application warranted her dismissal from service.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    oca vs flores

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent was appointed as a Court Legal Researcher but failed to disclose a previous dismissal from employment on her application documents. The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and found that Respondent had been dismissed from her previous job as a clerk for engaging in a workplace brawl and had been disciplined six times. Respondent claimed she forgot to disclose the information but was found guilty of dishonesty for intentionally concealing material facts about her employment history. As public officials are held to the highest ethical standards, Respondent's failure to provide truthful information on her application warranted her dismissal from service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    576 views2 pages

    Oca Vs Flores

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Erika Beredo Inandan
    Respondent was appointed as a Court Legal Researcher but failed to disclose a previous dismissal from employment on her application documents. The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and found that Respondent had been dismissed from her previous job as a clerk for engaging in a workplace brawl and had been disciplined six times. Respondent claimed she forgot to disclose the information but was found guilty of dishonesty for intentionally concealing material facts about her employment history. As public officials are held to the highest ethical standards, Respondent's failure to provide truthful information on her application warranted her dismissal from service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    A.M. No. P-07-2366. April 16, 2009.

    OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MARIA CELIA A.


    FLORES, Court Legal Researcher II
    FACTS:
    Respondent applied for and was appointed as Court Legal Researcher II in the
    Regional Trial Court, Branch 217, Quezon City. The Office of the Court
    Administrator (OCA) then came across a labor case decision docketed as G.R. No.
    109362 where respondent was dismissed as clerk of the Philippine Public School
    Teachers Association (PPSTA) for engaging a fellow employee in a brawl. It was
    also found that she was disciplinarily charged six times. Respondent filed a
    complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter who ruled in her favor. On
    appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission declared the dismissal valid.
    Pending resolution of the petition for certiorari, respondent was appointed as Court
    Legal Researcher II. Eventually, the validity of her dismissal was sustained. Upon
    learning of said case, the instant administrative complaint was filed by the OCA
    charging respondent with dishonesty for failure to disclose in her Personal Data
    Sheet (PDS) her suspension and dismissal from previous employment. The OCA
    then found respondent guilty of dishonesty and recommended her dismissal from
    service.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not respondent is guilty of dishonesty.
    RULING:
    YES. Dishonesty is defined as “intentionally making a false statement in any
    material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in
    securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion.” In the instant
    case, respondent attributed the failure disclose her previous suspension to “human
    frailty” and “honest mistake.” A suspension is not something that occurs in one’s
    career regularly that it can easily be forgotten. Anent respondent’s claim that she
    fully disclosed the fact of her dismissal in the PDS by citing the pendency of a
    petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, her failure to give the requisite
    particulars only demonstrated lent suspicion that she intended to conceal the
    pendency of the administrative case against her. The accomplishment of the PDS is
    required under Civil Service Rules and Regulations for employment in the
    government. The making of an untruthful statement therein amounts to dishonesty
    and falsification of an official document that warrant dismissal from the service.
    The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
    enunciates the State’s policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost
    responsibility in the public service. Persons involved in the dispensation of justice,
    from the highest official to the lowest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards
    of integrity, probity, uprightness and diligence in the public service. As the
    assumption of public office is impressed with paramount public interest, persons
    aspiring for public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance
    with the law.

    You might also like