Paris v. Government Service Insurance System

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 226190. September 20, 2017.]

MARY JOCELYN B. PARIS, petitioner, vs.GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 20, 2017, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 226190 (Mary Jocelyn B. Paris vs. Government Service Insurance System). — Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the February 22, 2016 Decision 1 and the July 13, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138864. The challenged rulings affirmed the December 4, 2014 Decision 3 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) finding petitioner guilty of Simple Misconduct, Simple Dishonesty, and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.

The Facts

Petitioner Mary Jocelyn B. Paris held the position of HR Staff Officer II at the Payroll Section, Salaries and Benefits Division, Compensation and Services Department of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). From May 2009 to January 2012, she was designated as the Authorized Agency Officer (AAO) of the GSIS and was tasked to certify the eligibility of its employees to avail of the GSIS service loans. Hence, the information that petitioner submits to the GSIS is vital in determining whether an employee is qualified to apply for the said loans.

On April 23, 2011, Ma. Theresa Dela Rosa (Dela Rosa) of the Claims Department sent a letter to the GSIS' Provident Fund Committee of Trustees (PFCOT) requesting that she be granted financial assistance in the form of a loan. In the course of evaluating the request, the PFCOT discovered that Dela Rosa was previously granted a Consolidated Loan (Conso-Loan) despite the fact that her net pay after deducting the monthly amortization for the said loan would fall below the minimum amount set forth in GSIS Office Order No. 28-06, 4 as follows:

(a) Php6,000 — for employees belonging to Salary Grade 25 and below

(b) Php12,000 — for officers/executives belonging to Salary Grade 26 and up

On November 14, 2011, the matter was referred to then GSIS President and General Manager Roberto G. Vergara for proper action, who, in turn, endorsed it to the GSIS Investigation Department (GID) for investigation. Thereafter, the GID discovered that petitioner was the AAO who certified that Dela Rosa was eligible to avail of the Conso-Loan when, in fact, she was not. Thus, on November 17, 2011, the GID issued a Show-Cause Order directing petitioner to explain why no administrative case should be instituted against her.

In a Memorandum-Explanation 5 dated November 22, 2011, petitioner stated that Dela Rosa initially applied for a Conso-Loan on October 8, 2010 with a monthly amortization of P6,384.80 for a period of six (6) years. 6 Her net pay at the time of application was P7,890.40. 7 Thus, Dela Rosa's application was denied because her take-home pay after deducting the monthly amortization would fall below the P6,000.00 threshold required under GSIS Office Order No. 28-06.

However, on October 13, 2010, Dela Rosa re-submitted her loan application and supposedly begged for petitioner's approval on humanitarian grounds. Moved, petitioner claims that she studied Dela Rosa's payslip for October 2010 which showed several Provident Fund (PF) loans. Nonetheless, based on Dela Rosa's promise to pay her existing PF loans directly from the proceeds of the Conso-Loan, petitioner surmised that Dela Rosa's monthly pay would then be enough to cover the monthly amortization of the Conso-Loan. Hence, petitioner certified that Dela Rosa was eligible to avail of the Conso-Loan leading to its approval.

After the conduct of the investigation, petitioner was charged with Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. On October 30, 2012, petitioner was placed under preventive suspension for a period of ninety (90) days, which she appealed to the CSC. The latter, however, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of preventive suspension. DETACa

Meanwhile, the administrative case proceeded and respondent filed her position paper 8 wherein she reiterated her previous statements in the Memorandum-Explanation but, this time, she also averred that GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 is invalid and unenforceable because (1) it was allegedly issued in excess of authority for Executive Order (E.O.) No. 462, 9 which it seeks to implement, does not specify a minimum take-home pay as a condition for the approval of GSIS loan applications; (2) it was issued without the prior approval of the GSIS Board of Trustees; and (3) it did not comply with the sine qua non condition of publication for effectivity. Petitioner further averred that GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 violates the equal protection clause for being discriminatory against GSIS executives and employees compared to other government employees.

GSIS Ruling

In its January 2, 2014 Decision, 10 the GSIS found that while petitioner had no evil or selfish motives in falsely certifying Dela Rosa's eligibility for loan application, she is still administratively liable for Simple Misconduct, Simple Dishonesty, and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.

As regards petitioner's argument that GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 is invalid and unenforceable, the GSIS ruled that it is valid for being issued pursuant to the GSIS President's power to direct and supervise the administration and operations of the GSIS. Hence, it is not subject to the approval or ratification of the Board of Trustees. Furthermore, GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 need not be published prior to its effectivity as it is merely an internal order. Lastly, the said office order is not discriminatory for being consistent with E.O. No. 462, which was enacted to provide a safety net on the monthly income of employees by limiting the excessive deductions from their salaries. The dispositive portion of the GSIS Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, Respondent MARY JOCELYN B. PARIS is found liable for SIMPLE MISCONDUCT, SIMPLE DISHONESTY and VIOLATION OF REASONABLE OFFICE RULES AND REGULATIONS and is hereby meted the penalty of SUSPENSION for a period of six (6) months.

Let copies of this Decision be served on the parties, and a copy thereof be attached to Respondent's 201 file.

SO ORDERED. 11

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration therefrom was denied by the GSIS through its April 29, 2014 Resolution. 12 Hence, she appealed before the CSC.

CSC Ruling

In its December 4, 2014 Decision, the CSC ruled that petitioner undoubtedly committed the offenses of Simple Misconduct, Simple Dishonesty, and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. It also added that since GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 has not been declared invalid by a court of law, the same is presumed valid and that petitioner had the duty to comply with its provisions in evaluating Dela Rosa's application for Conso-Loan. Thus, the CSC adopted and approved the findings of the GSIS, ruling as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by Mary Jocelyn B. Paris, HR Staff Officer II, Compensation and Services Department, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Main Office, Pasay City, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated January 2, 2014, which found her guilty of Simple Misconduct, Simple Dishonesty, and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and imposed upon her the penalty of six (6) months suspension; and the Resolution dated April 29, 2014, which denied her motion for reconsideration, both issued by the GSIS President and General Manager Robert G. Vergara, are AFFIRMED. 13

Petitioner then took recourse to the CA via a petition for review.

CA Ruling

On February 22, 2016, the CA rendered a Decision, affirming the ruling of the CSC, viz.:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Civil Service Commission dated December 4, 2014 is hereby UPHELD.

SO ORDERED. 14

The CA ruled that petitioner cannot simply raise the alleged invalidity of GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 as a defense in the administrative case against her. It stated that unless and until GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 is declared void by a competent court, it deserves full compliance. Nevertheless, the CA went on to discuss and uphold the validity of GSIS Office Order No. 28-06. Thus, the CA held that even if it were to delve into the issue of the validity of GSIS Office Order No. 28-06, petitioner's supposition on the matter will still fail.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA in its July 13, 2016 Resolution.

Hence, the instant petition.

The Issue

The principal issue before this Court is whether or not petitioner is guilty of Simple Misconduct, Simple Dishonesty, and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.

The Court's Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

In this case, the facts are undisputed. Petitioner herself admitted that she disregarded GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 when she issued a certification in favor of Dela Rosa to avail of the Conso-Loan but nevertheless attempts to evade administrative liability by attacking the validity of the said order. Such attempt, however, as established in the assailed rulings before the Court, is wretched and futile.

As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner cannot skirt liability by making a unilateral determination that GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 is void and thereafter come up with the conclusion that she should not be held liable for violating the same. We have ruled time and again that the constitutionality or validity of laws, orders, or such other rules with the force of law cannot be attacked collaterally. There is a legal presumption of validity of these laws and rules. Unless a law or rule is annulled in a direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its validity stands. 15 GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 therefore enjoys a presumption of validity and should have been observed by petitioner beforehand despite her opinion on its validity. In any case, the assailed rulings have exhaustively discussed the validity and enforceability of the said rule and the Court hereby adopts and approves the same. 16 Petitioner should then bear the consequences of her non-compliance therewith.

Moreover, petitioner clearly knew that GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 was in force at the time when Dela Rosa applied for the Conso-Loan. In fact, she denied the said application on the basis of insufficiency of Dela Rosa's net take-home pay as prescribed in the afore-stated order. Yet, taking into account the dire financial situation and pleas of Dela Rosa, petitioner gave in and issued the false loan eligibility certification. In so doing, petitioner undoubtedly violated GSIS Office Order No. 28-06 which makes her liable for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.

On the other hand, misconduct, in the administrative sense, is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action. It is an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. Misconduct is considered grave if accompanied by corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, a flagrant disregard of established rules. 17 Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple, 18 as in the present case wherein petitioner's action was not due to corruption, malice or bad faith.

Finally, the Court defined dishonesty as "intentionally making a false statement on any material fact" and "a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray." 19 Thus, it is clear that respondent committed a dishonest act by certifying an applicant's eligibility for a loan grant despite the latter's failure to meet the requirements of the law. However, since there was neither undue gain nor benefit derived by petitioner, the GSIS correctly ruled that her dishonest act falls under the category of simple dishonesty.

Given all of the foregoing, the GSIS, as affirmed by the CSC and later upheld by the CA, is correct in finding petitioner liable for the offenses of Simple Misconduct, Simple Dishonesty, and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, and thus, properly imposed upon her the penalty of suspension for a period of six (6) months. Verily, this Court sees no reason to overturn the ruling of the CA. aDSIHc

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, finding no reversible error in the assailed Decision dated February 22, 2016 and the Resolution dated July 13, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138864, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 193-208. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Socorro B. Inting.

2.Id. at 226-227.

3.Id. at 153-162.

4. Issued on March 29, 2006 by then GSIS President and General Manager Winston F. Garcia; id. at 47.

5.Id. at 269-271.

6.Id. at 54.

7.Id. at 193.

8.Id. at 65-83.

9. Entitled "Adopting Measures and Safety Nest to Protect the Income of Government Employees and for Other Purposes," signed on September 19, 2005.

10.Rollo, pp. 84-107.

11.Id. at 107.

12.Id. at 116-126.

13.Id. at 162.

14.Id. at 208.

15.Tan v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., G.R. No. 148420, December 15, 2005, 478 SCRA 115.

16.Rollo, pp. 203-205.

17.Office of the Ombudsman v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 213699, September 28, 2016.

18.Government Service Insurance System v. Mayordomo, G.R. No. 191218, May 31, 2011, 649 SCRA 667; Office of the Ombudsman v. Miedes, Sr., G.R. No. 176409, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 148; and Santos v. Rasalan, G.R. No. 155749, February 8, 2007, 515 SCRA 97.

19.Heirs of Celestino Teves v. Felicidario, A.M. No. P-12-3089, November 13, 2013; Villordon v. Avila, A.M. No. P-10-2809, August 10, 2012, 678 SCRA 247, 255.