Citing the Sourcebook on Administrative Offenses in the Civil Service published by the Civil Service

Commission and some actual Supreme Court decided cases as my references, I cited the following
jurisprudence on “Dishonesty”:

Dishonesty is defined as “intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or
attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or
promotion.” It is also understood to imply a “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and
straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.”

Thus, dishonesty, like bad faith, is not simply bad judgment or negligence. Dishonesty is a question of
intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken
not only on the facts or circumstances which gave rise to the act committed, but also the state of mind
at the time the offense is committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of
meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that
moment. (Wooden v. CSC, G.R. 152884, September 30, 2005; Millena v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
127797, January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 126).

In Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution 06-0538, issued on April 4, 2006, dishonesty is defined as
the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat,
deceive or betray and intent to violate the truth.

Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) promulgated on
November 8, 2011, by the CSC, administrative offenses are classified into grave, less grave or light,
depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.

Thus, under Section 46, Rule 10 of RRACCS, “serious dishonesty” is a grave offense punishable by
dismissal from the service. “less serious dishonesty,” while considered also as a grave offense, is
punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal from
the service for the second offense. Finally, “simple dishonesty” is a less grave offense punishable by
suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense; six months and one day to one
year for the second offense; and dismissal for the third offense. This column should not be taken as a
legal advice applicable to any case as each case is unique and should be construed in light of the
attending circumstances surrounding such particular case.

Lawyer Toni Umali is the current assistant secretary for Legal and Legislative Affairs of the DepEd. He is
licensed to practice law not only in the Philippines, but also in the state of California and some federal
courts in the United States after passing the California State Bar Examinations in 2004. He has served as
Based on the initial evaluation of the documents and the testimony of the respondent, we are convinced
that the defendant performed acts of dishonesty. Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service (RRACCS) promulgated on November 8, 2011, by the CSC, administrative offenses are
classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the
government service. Thus, under Section 46, Rule 10 of RRACCS, “serious dishonesty” is a grave offense
punishable by dismissal from the service. Dishonesty is defined as “intentionally making a false statement
in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his
examination, registration, appointment or promotion.” It is also understood to imply a “disposition to lie,
cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in
principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.”