camasura

A.M. No. P-10-2833* December 14, 2010 RETIRED EMPLOYEE, Municipal Trial Court, Sibonga, Cebu, Complainant, vs. MERLYN G. MANUBAG, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Sibonga, Cebu, Respondent.

Facts:

Respondent Merlyn G. Manubag, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court, Sibonga, Cebu (MTC), ) was administratively charged with: (1) Falsification of Public Documents, for allegedly submitting a fake diploma and falsifying her school records; (2) Immorality, for allegedly living with a certain Boy Alicaya and having a son who was registered and baptized with Boy Alicaya as the father, while still legally married to her husband, Sergio Manubag; and (3) Gambling during Office Hours, for playing mahjong during office hours.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that respondent Manubag be found guilty of Dishonesty and be dimissed from the service, effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits.

Issue:

Whether or not the incorrect entries made by Manubag in her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) constituted dishonesty by misrepresentation and falsification of an official document.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA.

Respondent Merlyn G. Manubag was dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Under Section 52 (A)(1) and (A)(6), Rule IV of the "Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service" (Resolution No. 99-1936 dated August 31, 1999), respondent’s act of making untruthful declarations in her PDS renders her administratively liable for falsification of public document and dishonesty which are classified as grave offenses and, thus, warrant the corresponding penalty of dismissal from the service even if either of them is respondent’s first offense. Section 58 of Rule IV thereof states that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision.

In Adm. Case for Dishonesty & Falsification Against Luna,SC emphasized that "every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, he must exhibit 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, to preserve the court's good name and standing."

VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, respondent-appellee.

Facts:

Petitioner Victorias Milling Company, Inc., through counsel, wrote the Social Security Commission protesting against the Circular No.22  as contradictory to Circular No. 7, expressly excluding overtime pay and bonus in the computation of the employers' and employees' respective monthly premium contributions. Counsel further questioned the validity of the circular for lack of authority on the part of the Social Security Commission to promulgate it without the approval of the President and for lack of publication in the Official Gazette.

The Social Security Commission ruled that Circular No. 22 is not a rule or regulation that needed the approval of the President and publication in the Official Gazette to be effective, but a mere administrative interpretation of the statute, a mere statement of general policy or opinion as to how the law should be construed.

Issue:

Whether or not Circular No. 22 is a rule or regulation, as contemplated in Section 4(a) of Republic Act 1161 empowering the Social Security Commission "to adopt, amend and repeal subject to the approval of the President such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of this Act."

Ruling:

A distinction between an administrative rule or regulation and an administrative interpretation of a law whose enforcement is entrusted to an administrative body is that, when an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations, it "makes" a new law with the force and effect of a valid law, while when it renders an opinion or gives a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law (Parker, Administrative Law, p. 197; Davis, Administrative Law, p. 194). Rules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a statute, and compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction provided in the law.

Section 8 (f) of Republic Act No. 1161 which, before its amendment, reads as follows:

(f) Compensation — All remuneration for employment include the cash value of any remuneration paid in any medium other than cash except (1) that part of the remuneration in excess of P500 received during the month; (2) bonuses, allowances or overtime pay; and (3) dismissal and all other payments which the employer may make, although not legally required to do so.

Republic Act No. 1792 changed the definition of "compensation" to:

(f) Compensation — All remuneration for employment include the cash value of any remuneration paid in any medium other than cash except that part of the remuneration in excess of P500.00 received during the month.

It will be seen that prior to the amendment, bonuses, allowances, and overtime pay given in addition to the regular or base pay were expressly excluded, or exempted from the definition of the term "compensation", such exemption or exclusion was deleted by the amendatory law. It thus became necessary for the Social Security Commission to interpret the effect of such deletion or elimination. Circular No. 22 was, therefore, issued to apprise those concerned of the interpretation or understanding of the Commission, of the law as amended, which it was its duty to enforce. It did not add any duty or detail that was not already in the law as amended. It merely stated and circularized the opinion of the Commission as to how the law should be construed.

Circular No. 22 purports merely to advise employers-members of the System of what, in the light of the amendment of the law, they should include in determining the monthly compensation of their employees upon which the social security contributions should be based, and that such circular did not require presidential approval and publication in the Official Gazette for its effectivity.

The Resolution appealed from was affirmed, with costs against appellant.