GR 191218; (May, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 191218 ; May 31, 2011
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and WINSTON F. GARCIA, in his capacity as President and General Manager of the GSIS, Petitioners, vs. ARWIN T. MAYORDOMO, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Arwin T. Mayordomo was an Accounts Management Specialist at the GSIS Fund Management Accounting Department. In September 2004, a network scan revealed that Mayordomo’s computer was using the internet protocol (IP) address assigned to another employee, Ignacio L. Liscano, which deprived Liscano of network access. Mayordomo was verbally warned. On February 9, 2005, a scan again found Mayordomo’s username simulating an IP address belonging to the GSIS Remote Access Server (RAS), which could provide access to the entire GSIS network and restricted resources. The next day, his username was found using two RAS IP addresses. His computer was pulled out to fix the glitches. GSIS stated his actions caused network conflicts, disrupted the mainframe system, prevented authorized outside users from accessing the network, and risked virus proliferation. In his written explanation on February 11, 2005, Mayordomo admitted the acts, citing a persistent IP address conflict that disrupted his work, which the IT group did not fix, leading him to change his address to use a network printer for a rush job. He apologized. On February 21, 2005, a memorandum strictly enjoined him not to repeat such acts. Over a year later, on May 3, 2006, he received a Show-Cause Memorandum. In his reply and subsequent Answer to a formal charge for Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service filed in June 2006, he admitted changing his IP address but denied violating any existing policy, claiming the relevant GSIS policy was only adopted on November 10, 2005. He waived a formal investigation. On March 7, 2007, GSIS found him guilty of Grave Misconduct and dismissed him. The Court of Appeals modified the penalty to a six-month suspension. Petitioners GSIS and Garcia assail this modification.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the penalty imposed by the GSIS from dismissal to a six-month suspension.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision with MODIFICATION. The penalty was reduced to a three-month suspension without pay.
The Court held that Mayordomo’s act of unauthorized IP address changing, while improper and warranting disciplinary action, did not constitute Grave Misconduct. Misconduct is grave if it involves corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules. Here, Mayordomo’s actions, though repeated, were primarily motivated by a desire to complete his work due to an unresolved technical issue, not by a wrongful intent to cause harm or breach security. He admitted his acts, apologized, and showed no corrupt motive. His offense was more appropriately classified as Simple Misconduct. Considering his length of service, acknowledgment of the infraction, and the absence of a clear policy at the time, the penalty of dismissal was too severe. The Court imposed a three-month suspension, deeming it proportionate to the infraction of Simple Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.