Scribd
Upload
539 views1 page

Miranda v. CSC and DOH

Miranda was an accountant charged with failure to submit financial reports to the Commission on Audit for several years. The Department of Health found her guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the service, imposing dismissal. The Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that while Miranda's delays constituted prejudicial conduct, the appropriate penalty was suspension for one year along with disqualification from promotion for that period, or forfeiture of one year's salary if suspension was no longer feasible.

Uploaded by

Bryan Jay Nuique
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
539 views1 page

Miranda v. CSC and DOH

Miranda was an accountant charged with failure to submit financial reports to the Commission on Audit for several years. The Department of Health found her guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the service, imposing dismissal. The Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that while Miranda's delays constituted prejudicial conduct, the appropriate penalty was suspension for one year along with disqualification from promotion for that period, or forfeiture of one year's salary if suspension was no longer feasible.

Uploaded by

Bryan Jay Nuique
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

JERLINDA M. MIRANDA, PETITIONER, v.

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

G.R. No. 213502, February 18, 2019

FACTS:

Miranda) was an Accountant III at the Western Visayas Medical Center (WVMC). 1 She was administratively charged
with Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Her Official Duties, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Grossly
Prejudicial to the Service,2 for failure to submit with the Commission on Audit (COA) WVMC's Financial Report,
particularly the trial balance, for the period from March to December 1996, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

After the hearing, the Department of Health (DOH), through then Secretary Francisco T. Duque III, found Miranda guilty
of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, imposing upon her the penalty of
dismissal from the service with accessory penalties of cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement
benefits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service.

Miranda filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA, dismissed the Petition on the following grounds: (1) The Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is a wrong mode
of appeal, the petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court, being the only remedy from the decisions,
final orders or resolution of the Civil Service Commission; and (2) Even if the CA will permit recourse under Rule 65,
still there was no basis to grant the petition since the Decision rendered by the CSC failed to disclose any grave abuse of
discretion, correctible by certiorari. 

ISSUE:

Having been found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and simple misconduct, what should
Miranda’s appropriate penalty?

HELD:

In the instant case, Miranda's delay in submitting financial reports undoubtedly constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service. Section 52, paragraph (A), No. 20, Rule IV of the same Rules categorize conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service as a grave offense with a corresponding penalty of suspension for six months and one day to
one year for the first offense, and the penalty of dismissal for the second offense.

However, under Section 50 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Revised Rules), if the
respondent is found guilty of two (2) or more charges, the penalty for the most serious charge shall be imposed and the
other charges shall be considered as aggravating circumstances. 52 In this case, considering the presence of one aggravating
circumstance with no proven mitigating circumstance, then the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed in accordance
with Section 49 (c) of the Revised Rules.

Thus, having been found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service aggravated by simple misconduct,
Miranda shall be meted the penalty of suspension for one (1) year. In conformity with Section 52 of the Revised Rules,
she shall also be meted the accessory penalty of disqualification from promotion for the entire period of the suspension.
However, if the penalty of suspension is no longer feasible, then it is just proper to impose the penalty of forfeiture of one
year of her salary, in lieu of the penalty of suspension for one year, to be deducted from whatever retirement benefits she
may be entitled to under existing laws

You might also like