Case Digest: PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION v. SYHONGPAN

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION v. RICHARD SYHONGPAN

500 SCRA 198 (2006)

A government officer or employee may be dismissed for dishonesty even if the latter was not committed in the performance of duty.

Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation’s (PAGCOR) Casino Filipino-Heritage, Manila opened its expanded VIP Gaming Area. Richard Syhongpan, the Branch Manager of Casino Filipino-Davao, attended the event during which he played in the casino area with other officers of the casino and players until the next day. The incident prompted PAGCOR to mobilize its Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) to investigate the matter since the action of Syhongpan was prohibited. Generally, PAGCOR employees are prohibited from playing in the casino. On special occasions, however, officers may be authorized by the Chairman of the Board of Directors to play, provided that they play only at the small tables, limit their bets to P5,000 per deal, and cease playing by 6:00 a.m. of the following day.

After investigations and deliberations, Syhongpan was charged guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. The same became a basis for his dismissal by the PAGCOR. Syhongpan appealed to the Civil Service Commission which affirmed the dismissal.

On appeal before the Court of Appeals, it held that Syhongpan could not be found guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty for the offense charged does not have direct relation to, or is not 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. A Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case on the ground that the offense charge does not have a direct relation and connection to the performance of official duties

HELD:

Dishonesty, to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the performance of duty of the employee charged. In Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, the therein petitioner, a Postmaster at the Postal Office Service in Infanta, Quezon, was dismissed by the CSC for dishonesty – acquiring fake eligibility for his wife who was an elementary school teacher. Posed as main issue was whether a civil service employee can be dismissed from the government service for an offense which is not work-related or which is not connected with the performance of his official duty. The Court upholds the legality of the dismissal. Under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, 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.

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, 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.