***NEWS AND UPDATES***

CSC issues new rules classifying dishonesty

Serious. Less serious. Simple.

These are the new classification of dishonesty contained in a set of rules issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on the said administrative offense.

A ground for disciplinary action for government officials and employees, dishonesty is defined as “the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray and an intent to violate the truth”.

Dishonesty was previously altogether classified as a grave offense, punishable with dismissal from the service on first offense.

CSC Chair Karina Constantino-David pointed out the need to classify further the offense of dishonesty in fair consideration that some dishonest acts “are not constitutive of an offense so grave to warrant the imposition of dismissal from the service”. This, she added, is apart from being able to properly impose the corresponding penalty based on the circumstances of the case.

The CSC chief moreover cited that a number of CSC decisions imposing dismissal from the service for dishonesty have been modified by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to only suspension in consideration of attendant circumstances.

The new rules on classifying the offense of dishonesty, contained in CSC Resolution No. 060538, spell out parameters that would guide disciplining authorities in charging the proper offense. It is hoped, David said, that after due process, proper penalty shall be imposed based on factual circumstances.

According to David, the offense of Serious Dishonesty under the new rules would involve the presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances: a) The dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the government; b) The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the dishonest act; c) Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly involves property, accountable forms or money for which he is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption; d) The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the respondent; e) The respondent employed fraud or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his or her employment; f) The dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions; or g) the dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets.

Circumstances wherein the dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government that is not so serious as to qualify under Serious Dishonesty, and wherein the respondent did not take advantage of his or her position in committing the dishonest act would only constitute Less Serious Dishonesty, David explained.

Dishonest acts that did not cause damage or prejudice to the government as well as those with no direct relation to or do not involve the duties and responsibilities of the respondent would make up for Simple Dishonesty. The same is true for dishonest acts that did not result in any gain or benefit to the offender, and where the information falsified is not related to employment in case of falsification of official document.

David said Simple Dishonesty is punishable by suspension from one month and one day to six months on first offense, and from six months and one day to one year on second offense. On third offense, simple dishonesty is punishable by dismissal from the service.

For Less Serious Dishonesty, penalties include suspension from six months and one day to one year on first offense, and dismissal from the service on second offense. The penalty for Serious Dishonesty, David stressed, is outright dismissal from the service.

Meanwhile, the CSC chief, citing CSC Resolution No. 061009, clarified that the rules on dishonesty shall not apply to cases already decided with finality prior to its effectivity. Also, David said all pending dishonesty cases or those filed within three years after its effectivity shall be labeled as Serious Dishonesty. This however is without prejudice to the finding of the proper offense after termination of the investigation.

CSC, DBM issue guidelines on rehab privilege

INJURIES from accidents obtained in going to work and coming home from work are not considered work-related and cannot be used as basis for rehabilitation privilege.

This provision is among the guidelines set by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and Department of Budget and Management (DBM) in availing of the Rehabilitation Privilege.

The guidelines, contained in CSC-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2006, explicitly provides that “injuries from accidents that occurred while the official or employee was going to work and going home from work are not considered sustained while in the performance of official duties”.

Issued to ensure uniform policy interpretation and prevent misuse of the rehabilitation leave, the guidelines further provide that illness or sickness resulting from or aggravated by working conditions or the environment also cannot be a basis for availing of the privilege.

The CSC explained that government officials and employees may be entitled to the Rehabilitation Privilege only for wounds or injuries sustained while in the performance of official duties. Performance of official duty, the CSC stressed, refers to situations wherein a government official or employee is already at work.

Employees who meet accidents while engaged in activities inherent to the performance of official duties may also be entitled to the rehabilitation privilege, the CSC said. This includes being on official business outside of work station, official travel, authorized overtime, detail order, and special assignment orders.

The Rehabilitation Privilege may be availed of for a maximum period of six months. It covers all government personnel with permanent, temporary, casual or contractual appointments including those with fixed terms of office. The CSC clarified though that consultants and persons hired under contracts of service and job orders are not entitled to the privilege.

The CSC pointed out that the duration, frequency and terms of availing the rehabilitation privilege shall be based on the recommendation of medical authority.

The Commission also made clear certain conditions in availing of the privilege that relate to leave credits, salaries and benefits. The CSC said government workers availing of the rehabilitation privilege shall receive their salaries and regular benefits. Such benefits include personnel economic relief allowance (PERA), additional compensation (AdCom), year-end bonus, and cash gift mandated by law.

However, benefits anchored on the actual performance of duties like the representation and transportation allowance (RATA) shall no longer be extended to officials and employees on rehabilitation.

The CSC said that while employees on rehabilitation privilege do not earn and accumulate vacation and sick leave credits, their absence from work during the period shall not be deducted from their leave credits.

To avail of the privilege, concerned officials and employees should first make a letter of application for rehabilitation privilege. Said letter must be supported by relevant reports such as police report, and a medical certificate that specifies the nature of injuries, the course of treatment and the need to undergo rehabilitation. In case the attending physician is a private practitioner, a written concurrence of a government physician on the recommendation for rehabilitation must be obtained.

The CSC added that an application for rehabilitation privilege should be made within one week from the time of the accident. Members of the employee’s immediate family can make the application in behalf of the employee.