G.R. NO. 151030 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, VS. RICHARD SYHONGPAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appeal of Richard Syhongpan and Carlos Gonzales is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation finding them guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for which they are meted out the penalty of dismissal is hereby affirmed. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate criminal action. [22] Syhongpan and Gonzales's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by CSC Resolution No. 990479 [23] of February 17, 1999. Only Syhongpan appealed to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The appellate court reversed, as stated early on, the CSC Resolutions by Decision of June 20, 2000, [24] the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, CSC Resolution Nos. 981738 dated July 2, 1998 and 990479 dated February 16, 1999 [sic] are hereby ANNULLED . Respondent PAGCOR is hereby ordered to pay petitioner his backwages, bonuses, tips plus all the benefits and privileges granted to a Branch Manager in petitioner's work from December 5, 1997 up to his actual reinstatement. Further, respondent PAGCOR is ordered to reinstate petitioner to his former position without loss of rank and seniority rights. [25] The appellate court held that Syhongpan could not be found guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty as, for such offenses to merit his dismissal from the service, they must have a direct relation to, and be connected with, the performance of his official duties. It noted that the incident did not occur in Syhongpan's office in Davao, but in Manila; and that there was nothing on record to support the finding that it was Syhongpan who was responsible for the check accommodation given to a playing customer. Syhongpan's involvement, the appellate court concluded, was based on mere speculations and conjectures. [26] PAGCOR's motion for reconsideration having been denied, [27] it filed the present petition faulting the appellate court I . . . WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE. II . . . WHEN IT REVERSED AND NULLIFIED THE FINDING OF THE CSC AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE PAGCOR BOARD DISMISSING THE RESPONDENT FROM THE SERVICE BECAUSE OF DISHONESTY, GROSS MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE. III . . . WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE RESPONDENT A CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE WHOSE TERM HAD EXPIRED BY REASON OF LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. [28] The appeal is impressed with merit. Dishonesty, to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the performance of duty of the employee charged. In Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, [29] the therein petitioner, a Postmaster at the Postal Office Service in Infanta, Quezon, was dismissed by the CSC for dishonesty acquiring fake eligibility for his wife who was an el