When is an Employee Considered ‘Notoriously Undesirable’ in the Philippines?

A.M. No. P-94-1067, January 30, 1997

Imagine a court employee known for violent behavior, potentially influencing cases, and generally creating a disruptive environment. Can such an employee be dismissed? This case delves into the grounds for dismissing a government employee deemed ‘notoriously undesirable,’ balancing due process with the need to maintain the integrity of public service. The Supreme Court tackles the question of how far an employee’s misconduct must go before termination is justified, offering crucial insights for both employers and employees in the Philippines.

Defining ‘Notoriously Undesirable’ in Philippine Law

The concept of an employee being ‘notoriously undesirable’ falls under the administrative offenses that can lead to dismissal in the Philippine civil service. While there isn’t a precise statutory definition, it generally refers to conduct that is widely known and recognized as detrimental to the public service. This can include a range of behaviors that undermine public trust and confidence in government institutions. The key is that the conduct must be well-known and have a negative impact on the agency’s reputation or operations.

Section 23, Rule 14 of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws classifies “being notoriously undesirable” as a grave offense with a corresponding penalty of dismissal, or forced resignation.

For example, a government employee who is publicly known for accepting bribes, engaging in illegal activities, or consistently displaying gross misconduct could be considered notoriously undesirable. The standard of proof required is substantial evidence, meaning that there must be enough credible information to support a reasonable conclusion that the employee’s conduct warrants dismissal.

The Case of Concerned Citizens vs. Arzaga and Mauricio

This case began with anonymous letters detailing serious allegations against Bienvenido Arzaga and Alfredo Mauricio, process servers at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Laoag City. The charges included influence peddling, drunkenness, gambling, bribery, extortion, and manipulating bonds. While Arzaga was cleared due to lack of evidence, Mauricio’s past criminal record and subsequent behavior came under scrutiny.

• The initial investigation found that Mauricio had a prior conviction for frustrated murder, for which he was placed on probation.
• Further investigation revealed allegations that Mauricio had used Judge Fernandez’s name to solicit favors, specifically asking for tires and gasoline, which the judge denied authorizing.
• Judge Agnir strongly recommended Mauricio’s dismissal, describing him as an “ultimate undesirable employee and a disgrace to the judiciary.”

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reviewed the case. While the OCA acknowledged the lack of concrete evidence for the initial charges, they concurred with the investigating judge’s assessment of Mauricio as troublesome and violent. They also noted that Mauricio had disclosed his prior conviction in his application.

However, the Supreme Court ultimately adopted the investigating judge’s recommendation for dismissal, emphasizing the need for public servants to maintain the highest standards of integrity and discipline. As stated by the Court:

“Public service requires the utmost integrity and strictest discipline. Thus, a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people.”

The Court further emphasized that a public office is a public trust, and all public officers and employees must serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

This case underscores the importance of maintaining high ethical standards in public service. It clarifies that even if specific charges cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, an employee’s overall conduct and past record can be considered when determining their suitability for continued employment. Employers must conduct thorough background checks and address any misconduct promptly to maintain public trust.

Key Lessons:

• Transparency is crucial: Employees must be honest and transparent in their applications, disclosing any past convictions or charges.
• Reputation matters: Public servants are held to a higher standard of conduct, both on and off duty.
• Documentation is key: Employers should document all instances of misconduct and maintain thorough records.

Hypothetical Example: Imagine a government accountant who is publicly known for extravagant spending habits and lavish lifestyle, despite earning a modest salary. Even if no direct evidence of corruption is found, the perception of impropriety could be grounds for investigation and potential disciplinary action.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What does it mean to be ‘notoriously undesirable’ as a government employee?

A: It refers to conduct that is widely known and recognized as detrimental to the public service, undermining public trust and confidence in government institutions.

Q: Can a prior criminal conviction be grounds for dismissal?

A: While disclosure of a prior conviction doesn’t automatically disqualify an applicant, it can be considered along with other factors in determining suitability for employment, especially if the crime reflects on the employee’s honesty or integrity.

Q: What standard of proof is required to dismiss an employee for being ‘notoriously undesirable’?

A: Substantial evidence is required, meaning there must be enough credible information to support a reasonable conclusion that the employee’s conduct warrants dismissal.

Q: What should an employer do if they suspect an employee of misconduct?

A: Conduct a thorough investigation, document all findings, and provide the employee with an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Q: What are the rights of an employee accused of being ‘notoriously undesirable’?

A: The employee has the right to due process, including the right to be informed of the charges, the right to present evidence, and the right to legal representation.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and administrative investigations. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.