From the lens of the law: Notoriously Undesirable
In the interest of education, teachers must always be diplomatic in their everyday dealings with colleagues and coworkers. It means a high degree of patience in dealing with people or situations without upsetting anyone. Public teachers are mandated by the profession to deal nicely and in harmony with the generally accepted principles of good conduct and morality in good faith, with all good fidelity to the Department, as to stakeholders, and learners, they serve in consonance with the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service.
Public employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with justice, and uphold public interest over personal interest. At all times, most if not all, try to deal nicely with co-workers, as expected, regardless of their behavior, status, and position. Nevertheless, there are very few who go over the limit and challenge one’s patience and character, the ones who notoriously and habitually violate the ethical conduct set by the rules.
In all offices and workplaces, it cannot be averted to find a person who is notoriously known as undesirable, someone who cannot get along with his or her co-employees and can upset and strain the good harmony in the workplace and is therefore detrimental to the best interest of the service. Thus, it is noteworthy to remember the standards set by the policy and rules.
As provided by DO.49 s. 2006, a public employee who is found guilty of being notoriously undesirable, being a grave offense shall be punished by dismissal from service for the first offense. Whether or not an employee is notoriously undesirable, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) prescribes a two-fold test: (1) whether it is common knowledge or generally known as universally believed to be true or manifest to the world that the employee committed the acts imputed against him; and (2) whether he had contracted the habit for any of the enumerated misdemeanors. The same Rules provide that if the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating.
In one case decided by the Supreme Court in 799 Phil. 622, the Court dismissed a public employee who was difficult to work with and that he had negative interactions with his co-employees. Being notoriously undesirable is not a specific term of an offense. It is not limited to a grave and habitual violative act. To be held guilty of being notoriously undesirable, a public employee’s notorious undesirability is manifest from his or her general reputation among his co-workers. It could be his or her inability to work well with others, habitually disrespectful, is known for gossiping and making intrigues detrimental to his or her co-employees, notorious for making false accusations, or other notorious undesirable and violative acts which may be proved to be in the umbrella of notorious undesirability.
Article Written by:
Mark John Ortiz
Teacher III - San Juan Elementary School