531 Phil. 590
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
We therefore believe that a partnership was formed last October 8th by BM SYHONGPAN and COM GONZALES to win money at Pagcor gaming tables in CF-Heritage. To evade the strict injunctions on table limits, time limit and playing in the big tables applicable to playing officers, the partnership employed CORAZON CASTILLO as its "gunner[.]" When the partnership needed additional capital, it was COM GONZALES acting under the direction and control of BM SYHONGPAN who approached various financiers, eventually incurring a total indebtedness of P2.7 Million. When they could not borrow from the financiers anymore, BM SYHONGPAN conceived a scheme utilizing: 1) the character and reputation of one QUINTIN A. LLORENTE; 2) his [BM SYHONGPAN's] position and influence as a Branch Manager of Pagcor and, 3) the position and influence of COM GONZALES as a COM of CF-Heritage to circumvent the existing approval procedure for personal checks accommodations. This allowed the partnership to borrow a total of P7 Million from the Heritage Treasury. Proof of this scheme can be seen in the fact that, after deducting about P100,000 which was paid to MS. CASTILLO for her services as a gunner and the owner of the PCs issued, the net profits of roughly P500,000 were divided 50-50 between BM SYHONGPAN and COM GONZALES. Part of the elaborate scheme to deceive the Treasury involved the usurpation of authority by COM GONZALES to have them believe that the check accommodations were all cleared by the branch SBM/BMO, when in fact they were not. Another part of the scheme involved the use of MR. LLORENTE as an indorsee/guarantor to present himself as the purported applicant for the accommodation. This was an act of fraud, since, as correctly observed by the Treasury, the true applicant/owner of the checks was CORAZON CASTILLO and not QUINTIN LLORENTE.[6] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Syhongpan, Gonzales and other personnel of the PAGCOR were thereafter summoned to appear before the PAGCOR's Adjudication Committee to "explain further."[7]
QUINTIN LLORENTE | 1,400,000 |
LITO MADLANGBAYAN | 870,000 |
TEDDY TAYLAN | 200,000 |
FELISA SY (ASA) | 100,000 |
BOY OZAMIS | 50,000 |
LOUIE (runner of FELISA SY) | 80,000 |
TOTAL | 2,700,000;[12] |
The Committee thus recommended as follows:
- conspiring with COM GONZALES and casino patrons to borrow and obtain chips from the CF-Heritage Treasury.
- playing beyond 6:00 of the immediately following day.
- exceeding the betting limit of P5,000 per deal.
- playing at the big tables
- borrowing from players or financiers
- engaging in proxy betting
- excessively fraternizing with female casino patrons
- drinking excessively while at the gaming area
- abusing his authority in obtaining playing chips from Treasury personnel.[17]
The Board of Directors, after considering the findings and recommendation of the Adjudication Committee, resolved to dismiss from the service Syhongpan, together with Gonzales.[19]Because he utilized a fraud to borrow funds from Pagcor to win against Pagcor, the entire scheme was dishonest. By his acts, he manifested a desire for personal gain which overrode his duty to protect the Corporation. This created a conflict of interest for which he is directly and personally responsible and liable. Finally, BM SYHONGPAN prevaricated under [sic] investigation and before the Adjudication Committee to conceal the truth.
- BM RICHARD S. SYHONGPAN of CF-Davao is liable for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service as the "mastermind" of the whole nefarious scheme, from the time of the formation of the partnership until the division of its profits, with partners all acting under his direction and control and acting personally as a principal by inducement and by direct participation in the borrowing of sums from financiers. At the same time, he is liable for circumventing casino regulations prohibiting officers from playing beyond 6:00 of the following morning, rules on maximum bets and rules prohibiting officers from playing at the big tables by employing CORAZON CASTILLO as his "gunner[.]" This constitutes "proxy betting[.]" He took undue advantage of his position and influence to circumvent the rules, for his personal benefit and profit.
It is also the opinion of the Adjudication Committee that the acts committed by BM RICHARD SYHONGPAN violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 3 subparagraphs a, e, h and j thereof. Also, BM RICHARD SYHONGPAN violated the Code of Ethical Conduct for Public Officers and Employees, particularly Section 7 thereof, subparagraphs (c) and (d).
For this, it is respectfully recommended that BM RICHARD SYHONGPAN be dismissed from the service. This is without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate charges against him before the Ombudsman.[18] (Emphasis and underscoring partly in the original and partly supplied)
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Richard Syhongpan and Carlos Gonzales is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation finding them guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for which they are meted out the penalty of dismissal is hereby affirmed.Syhongpan and Gonzales's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by CSC Resolution No. 990479[23] of February 17, 1999.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate criminal action.[22]
WHEREFORE, CSC Resolution Nos. 981738 dated July 2, 1998 and 990479 dated February 16, 1999 [sic] are hereby ANNULLED. Respondent PAGCOR is hereby ordered to pay petitioner his backwages, bonuses, tips plus all the benefits and privileges granted to a Branch Manager in petitioner's work from December 5, 1997 up to his actual reinstatement. Further, respondent PAGCOR is ordered to reinstate petitioner to his former position without loss of rank and seniority rights.[25]The appellate court held that Syhongpan could not be found guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty as, for such offenses to merit his dismissal from the service, they must have a direct relation to, and be connected with, the performance of his official duties. It noted that the incident did not occur in Syhongpan's office in Davao, but in Manila; and that there was nothing on record to support the finding that it was Syhongpan who was responsible for the check accommodation given to a playing customer. Syhongpan's involvement, the appellate court concluded, was based on mere speculations and conjectures.[26]
The appeal is impressed with merit.I
. . . WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.II
. . . WHEN IT REVERSED AND NULLIFIED THE FINDING OF THE CSC AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE PAGCOR BOARD DISMISSING THE RESPONDENT FROM THE SERVICE BECAUSE OF DISHONESTY, GROSS MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.III
. . . WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE RESPONDENT A CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE WHOSE TERM HAD EXPIRED BY REASON OF LOSS OF CONFIDENCE.[28]
It cannot be denied that dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. And the rule is that dishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty by the person charged. The rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in office. The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service. (Emphasis supplied)Syhongpan did indeed commit serious violations of casino rules and regulations and his duties as Branch Manager of Casino Filipino-Davao. By his own admission, he formed a "corporation" composed of persons who agreed to pool together their resources and play at the gaming tables and share in the profits or losses,[30] thereby advancing his personal interest over that of the corporation which he was duty bound to protect, being a high officer of the corporation. Such admission, together with his other admissions detailed above which are against his interest, clearly merit his dismissal.
As borne by the records of the case, Syhongpan circumvented casino regulations prohibiting New PAGCOR officers from playing beyond 6:00 o'clock of the following morning, rules on maximum bets and rules prohibiting officers from playing at the big tables by employing Corazon Castillo as his "gunner[.]" Gonzales, acting under the direction and control by [sic] Syhongpan, approached various financiers whenever their partnership needed additional capital, incurring a total indebtedness of P2.7 Million pesos. When they could not borrow from the financiers, Syhongpan utilized the character and reputation of a certain Quintin A. Llorente as an indorsee/guarantor to present himself as the purported applicant for the accommodation. This was an act of fraud, since the true applicant/owner of the checks was Corazon Castillo and not Quintin Llorente. Syhongpan also took advantage of his position and influence as Branch Manager of a PAGCOR casino. Likewise Gonzales took advantage of his position and influence as Casino Operations Manager of Casino Filipino-Heritage to circumvent the existing approval procedure for personal checks accommodations. This allowed the partnership to borrow a total of P7 Million pesos from the Heritage Treasury.[31]It is axiomatic that where the findings of the administrative body are amply supported by substantial evidence, as they are in the present case, they are accorded not only respect but also finality, and are binding on this Court.[32]