Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
First Division

The Civil Service Commission

and CMWD GM REYES,
AND
Petitioners,

AC No. 1234-0876
GRAVE
MISCONDUCT
DISHONESTY

-versusALDEN MENDOZA,
Respondent.
X---------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW, Respondent, through undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully submits and presents this
Memorandum in the above-titled case and avers that:
THE PARTIES
1. Respondent, ALDEN MENDOZA, is of legal age, single,
Storekeeper A of the City of Malolos Water District (CMWD)
and a resident of Brgy. 123-C, Malolos City, Bulacan, where he
may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this
Honorable Court.
2. Petitioner, GM Reyes, General Manager of City of Malolos
Water District, with address at Brgy. Bayabas Bulacan, Bulacan
where they may be served with notices issued by this
Honorable Court and other legal processes.

STATEMENT OF CASE AND THE FACTS

Petitioner GM Reyes of City of Malolos Water District charged
respondent Mendoza (Storekeeper A of CMWD) with grave
misconduct for the alleged malicious and damaging utterances made
by respondent to wit Masasamang tao ang mga BOD at General
Manager against GM Reyes and the rest of the CMWD Board of
Directors (BOD) as witnessed by the respondents subordinates.
Furthermore, respondent has also been charged with dishonesty for
respondents act of claiming overtime pay despite his failure to log in
and log out in the computerized daily time record for three working
days.
The respondent vehemently denies the charges against him. On
the charge of grave misconduct, he stressed that three of the four
witnesses already retracted their statements against him. On the
charge of dishonesty, he asserted that he never failed to log in and log
out. The reason of the lack of record was caused beyond his control as
there had been technical computer problems causing the entries of
the log to be lacking. He presented evidences supporting the claim of
rendering overtime services on those three working days.
Petitioner CMWD preventively suspended respondent for 15
days. Before the expiration of the 15 day preventive suspension, the
CMWD Board found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and
dishonesty, and dismissed him from service.
The case was elevated to the Civil Service Commission which
ruled thru a resolution reversing the decision of the CMWD Board
and ordered his reinstatement. However, CSC found him liable for
violation of reasonable office rules for his failure log in and log out,
thereby imposing a penalty of reprimand but did not order the
payment of back salaries.
Both the CMWD and the respondent elevated the CSC ruling to
the CA via separate petitions for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court. The CA dismissed the CMWDs petition and this ruling has
2

lapsed to finality. Hence, the issue of reinstatement is now a settled

matter. As outlined below, the CA ruled in the respondents favor on
the issue of back salaries.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
WON the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct for the utterances
made by him?
WON the respondent is guilty of dishonesty for failure to log in and
log out in the computerized DTR for overtime services rendered for
three days?
WON [the] respondent is entitled to back salaries after the CSC
ordered his reinstatement to his former position, consonant with the
CSC ruling that he was guilty only of violation of reasonable office
rules and regulations
DISCUSSION
The respondent is not liable for grave misconduct. As ruled by
the CSC, such utterance, even if it were true, does not constitute a
flagrant disregard of rule or was actuated by corrupt motive. To the
mind of the Commission, it was a mere expression of disgust over the
management style of the GM and the Board of Directors, especially
when due notice is taken of the fact that the latter officials were
charged with the Ombudsman for various anomalous transactions.
As to the charge of dishonesty, the same also does hold water.
As the Commission ruled, the latter is not swayed that the failure of
Cruz to record his attendance on April 21 and 22, 2007 and May 5,
2007, while claiming overtime pay therefor, amounts to dishonesty.
Cruz duly submitted evidence showing his actual rendition of work on
those days. The residents of the place where he worked attested to his
presence thereat on the days in question.
However, as to the claims the respondent maintains that he is
entitled to reinstatement and back salaries. The CA downgraded the
charge of dishonesty to violation of reasonable office rules and
regulation which CSC imposed a penalty of reprimand. Furthermore,
3

the Commission agrees that the penalty of reprimand is not a reduced

penalty for the penalty of dismissal imposable for grave misconduct
and dishonesty.
While it may be said that the CA ruled that the herein
respondent is guilty of violation of reasonable office rules and
regulations, the same does may not be warranted to bar the
respondents entitlement to back salaries claims.
As held in the case of Banglisan Vs. Hon. CA, it reiterated that
that the payment of back salaries, during the period of suspension of
a member of the civil service who is subsequently ordered reinstated,
may be decreed only if the employee is found innocent of the charges
which caused the suspension and when the suspension is unjustified.
Hence, to justify the award for back salaries two conditions must be
present, first that there was exoneration from the case as charged,
and second that the suspension was unjustified.
The first condition was met since the offense which the
respondent was found guilty of (violation of reasonable rules and
regulations) stemmed from an act (failure to log in and log out)
different from the act of dishonesty (claiming overtime pay despite
his failure to render overtime work) that he was charged with.
The second condition was met as the respondents offense
committed merits neither dismissal from the service nor suspension
(for more than one month), but only reprimand.
While the factual findings of the CSC are given great weight as
the same has been duly affirmed by the CA, nevertheless, it is
submitted that as to the issue of the respondent on the claim for back
salaries, we believe with the CAs decision that the two conditions to
justify the award of back salaries exist in the present case.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed
that the decision made by the Court of Appeals be AFFIRMED for

being clearly meritorious and substantiated with prevailing laws and

jurisprudence.
Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise
being prayed for.
Respectfully submitted. Malabon City, Philippines-May 2, 2016
ATTY. JAYSON G. AZURA, CPA
Counsel for the Respondent
2nd Floor LF & V Fatima Bdg., Real St., Malolos
PTR NO. 6954715/01/03/16/Malolos
IBP OR # 808786/01/03/16/Malolos
Attys. Roll No. xxxxx/May 10, 2015
MCLE
COMPLIANCE
NUMBER

IV-

0001211/1/2/16
Contact No. 321-0248
Email: j.azura@yahoo.com
Copy Furnished:
Atty: Mary Ivy M. Pacala
Address: Brgy. XYZ, Malolos City
Proof of service:
I, ________________, of legal age, after having been duly sworn
depose and say,
That I am the messenger of Atty. Jayson G. Azura, CPA, counsel for
the respondent in the civil case entitled, Grave Misconduct and
Dishonesty, Admin. Case No. _________ and that such messenger
I served upon of adverse party or other parties, this pleading filed in
said case, as follows:
Atty. Jayson G. Azura, CPA, counsel for the respondent, by personal
service by delivering personally a copy of said memorandum upon
said lawyer who acknowledged the receipt thereof as shown by his
signature in this memorandum, this 2nd day of May 2016.
In witness hereof, I have signed this affidavit this 2 nd day of May 2016
at Malolos City.
5

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a notary public in and
from Malolos City this day of second day of March at Malolos City
Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 121212
issued on 5/2/16 at Malolos City, Bulacan.
Atty. Yves P. Azura
Until Dec. 2016
Doc. No: 3
Page No:5
Book No:IV
Series of 2016

Submitted by: Azura, Jayson G.

LAW I-Executive Class