Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
Re: Spurious Certificate of |
A.M.
No. 05-5-268-RTC |
|
Eligibility of Tessie G. Quires, |
|
|
Regional
Trial Court, Office of |
Members: |
|
the
Clerk of Court, |
|
|
|
PANGANIBAN, C.J. |
|
|
PUNO, |
|
|
QUISUMBING, |
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, |
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, |
|
|
CARPIO, |
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
|
|
CARPIO-MORALES, |
|
|
CALLEJO, SR., |
|
|
AZCUNA, |
|
|
TINGA, |
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO,
|
|
|
GARCIA, and |
|
|
VELASCO,
JR., JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
Promulgated: |
|
|
|
|
|
May 4, 2006 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PER CURIAM:
Dishonesty
is a serious offense which reflects on a person’s character and exposes the
moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity.[1] It is a malevolent act that has no place in
the judiciary, as no other office in the government service exacts a greater
demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the
judiciary.[2]
Tessie G.
Quires (Quires) was hired as a contractual employee in the Office of the Clerk of
Court of the Regional Trial Court (OCC-RTC), Quezon City (Q.C.) on
On
On
wrote then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. informing him of the spurious certificate of eligibility of Quires.[8]
The Court
referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for
investigation, report and recommendation, through a Resolution dated
On
On September 23, 2005, Justice Quimbo received a letter from Perlita Vitan-Ele, Clerk of Court of the RTC Q.C., explaining that they were not able to forward Justice Quimbo’s letters to Quires as they were expecting that she would return to work and that Justice Quimbo’s letters could be served on her personally;[13] that she also caused the personal delivery of Justice Quimbo’s letters to Quires’ known addresses at No. 12 Malambing St. Diliman, Q.C. and No. 1910 Don Jose St. Don Antonio Heights, Diliman, Q.C.; that Quires however is no longer residing in both addresses and is believed to have gone back to her province in Bohol; that with the failure of Quires to return to work despite the lapse of her filed leave, Ele forwarded Justice Quimbo’s letters to Quires’ hometown.[14]
Quires did not file any comment neither did she attend any of the hearings set on September 23, 2005, October 14, 2005, and October 18, 2005.[15] The records of the Leave Division of the OCA showed that Quires took leaves of absence for the entire months of June, July and August 2005.[16] Ele also said that Quires has not reported to work even after the expiration of her three-month leave.[17]
On
Director AZUCENA PEREZ-ESTELETA[18]
ERPO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Diliman Quezon City
Dear Madamme,
Isang magandang pagbati po
sa inyo, Nangyari po akong sumulat dahil sa natangap kong Show cause order, mga
ilang buwan na pong nakakaraan. Dahil po
doon lubha po akong natakot na nagdulot po ito ng matinding pangamba sa buhay
ko araw-araw. Na naging dahilan narin po
para ako mag resigned sa aking trabaho Ngunit ako po ay isang biktima rin ng
ilang mapagsamantala sa lipunan. Na
nakuha sa matatamis na salita at pangako.
Sanay sapat na pong parusa sa akin ang pag reresigned ko sa
sa aking trabaho, na naging dagok ito sa buhay ko, hindi lang po sa akin, kondi
narin po sa aking boong pamilya. At
masabi ko rin pong ng aking kinabukasan.
Dahil sa aking pagkakamaling ito.
Hinihingi ko po ang inyong
kapatawaran at pag-unawa sa darating na panahon. Inu-ulit ko po sa inyo, ako po ay isang
BIKTIMA ng ilang mapagsamantalang mga tao sa lipunan.
Lubos
na Gumagalang
TESSIE QUIRES
CC; Supreme
Court
Office of the Court Administrator
ROMULO S. QUIMBO
Hearing Officer-Designate[19]
Upon verification with the Personnel Office of the OCA, however, it was found out that Quires has not officially resigned from work.[20]
In his Report
dated
Quires was employed by the
Court under false pretenses. She took
advantage of a fake certificate of eligibility.
Her claim that she had taken the Career Service Professional Examination
on
Her acts constitute gross dishonesty and misconduct. Under the Uniform Rules in Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service, gross dishonesty is penalized with dismissal from
office with prejudice to reinstatement and with forfeiture of any retirement
benefits.[21]
In a
Resolution dated
In a Memorandum dated
Respondent Quires has not disputed the charges
against her. Although her alleged letter
of resignation in which she owned up to the charges leveled against her carries
little or no evidentiary weight, it indisputably stands that respondent Quires’
Certificate of Eligibility is spurious.
Besides, the records of the Commission do not include Ms. Quires in the
roster of eligibles nor in the master list of passing/failing examinees of the
October 10, 2001 Career Service Professional Examination. The probative value of the CSC’s masterlist
of eligibles cannot be discounted. The
Court declares the masterlist to be the primary record of eligibles. It is the list officially prepared and kept
by the [CSC] pursuant to its constitutional and statutory mandates to conduct
and safeguard civil service examinations.
It is what [CSC] utilizes to verify the eligibility of applicants in the
government service. xxx Well to emphasize, the masterlist of eligibles is an
official record. As such, every entry
made therein is presumed genuine and accurate unless proven otherwise
(Civil Service Commission vs. Cayobit, G.R. No. 145737,
Respondent Quires concealed or distorted the truth in a
matter of fact relevant to her office or connected with the performance of her
duty. This is dishonesty. xxx It
is a serious offense which reflects the person’s character and exposes the
moral decay which virtually destroys her honor, virtue and integrity (Prieto
vs. Cariaga, 242 SCRA 317, [1997]).
Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 1991, respondent
Quires’ act of procuring and/or using a fake or spurious Certificate of
Eligibility constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct punishable by dismissal
from service.
In the judiciary, dishonesty and grave misconduct are
harshly penalized as no other office in the government puts the highest premium
on its employees’ moral righteousness and uprightness than in the
judiciary. It bears stressing the
constant reminder from the Court that persons involved in the administration
of justice ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity
in the public service. The conduct
required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk,
must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. This Court cannot
countenance any act or omission by all those involved in the administration of
justice, where such act or omission would violate the norm of public
accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary (Civil
Service Commission vs. Sta. Ana, A.M. No. OCA-01-5,
Indubitably, substantial evidence warrants imposition of
administrative sanctions against respondent Quires. Moreover, her acts open her to criminal
culpability for falsification under Article 171 (par.4) and Article 172 of the
Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, it is
respectfully recommended that respondent Tessie G. Quires be DISMISSED from the
service with prejudice to re-employment in any part of the government service
including government-owned or controlled corporations with forfeiture or
retirement benefits.[24]
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the then Court Administrator.
Dishonesty has been 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.[25]
The Court has pronounced, time and again, that it is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[26] Assumption of public office is impressed with paramount public interest, thus persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence in the public service.[27]
In this case, Tessie G. Quires submitted a CSC Professional Examination Certificate of Eligibility with a grade of 82.48% and stated in her PDS that she passed the CSC Professional exam with the said grade.
There is no doubt, however, that the certificate she submitted is spurious and that the statement in her PDS pertaining thereto is false as the CSC itself has verified that Quires’ name is not in the list of those who took the examination on said date and that the codes on the certificate she submitted are different from those which were actually used.
As correctly pointed out by Justice Velasco, the CSC masterlist is the primary record of eligibles, as such, every entry made therein is presumed genuine and accurate unless proven otherwise.[28]
The act of making a false statement in one’s PDS renders an employee liable for falsification.[29]
Quires’ act of indicating in her personal data
sheet that she passed the career service professional examination when in fact
she did not constitutes falsification of a document by making an untruthful
statement in a narration of facts, as defined under Art. 171, par. 4, of the
Revised Penal Code.[30]
In
falsification by false narration of facts, (1) the offender makes untruthful
statements in a narration of facts; (2) he has a legal obligation to disclose
the truth of the facts narrated by him; (3) the facts narrated are absolutely
false; and (4) it was made with a wrongful intent to injure a third person.[31]
These acts of dishonesty and falsification are grave offenses under Sec. 23 Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations which warrant the penalty of dismissal from service even for the first offense.
The Court further notes that Quires stopped reporting for work when investigation regarding her spurious certificate of eligibility started to take full swing with the OCA and she has not returned to work upon the lapse of her three-month leave. The Clerk of Court of the RTC Q.C. has also exerted efforts to locate her at her known addresses and has forwarded the Court’s notices to her address in the province, to no avail. The Court has held that absence without official leave during the investigation of the administrative case against respondent is indicative of her guilt in the same way that flight in criminal cases creates the presumption of guilt.[32]
Indeed, the letter addressed to Director Esleta of the ERPO CSC purportedly from Quires cannot be given weight as it was not signed and subscribed by Quires. And even if it were to be considered, it would not be of any help to her case. As the Court pronounced in Disapproved Appointment of Limgas[33]
Respondent’s claim that she was a victim of an
injustice perpetrated by fixers, insiders and syndicates operating in the
Regional Offices of the CSC, does not merit any consideration. The same is self-serving. If the said claim were true, she should have
explained this convincingly to the Court supported with competent
evidence. This, she did not do. Does she think this Court will believe that
she has nothing to do with the bogus certificate of eligibility in the light of
the fact that no fixer will simply give a person a fake certificate without the
latter dealing with the former?[34]
Clearly, Quires has no place in the Judiciary, where only those possessing integrity, honesty, competence and independence of mind are summoned to answer the clarion’s call of public office.[35] Her use of a spurious certificate of eligibility prejudiced other applicants who are genuinely qualified for the position.[36] And her act of dishonesty to gain unwarranted advantage over other more qualified applicants cannot be said to have measured up to the standards required of a public servant.[37]
WHEREFORE, Tessie G. Quires is DISMISSED from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency and government-owned or controlled corporation, and with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leaves, if any. This decision shall take effect immediately.
Let the Civil Service Commission be furnished a copy hereof.
SO ORDERED.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
CONSUELO YNARES-ANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES Associate Justice |
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
[1] Civil
Service Commission v. Cayobit, G.R. No. 145737,
[2] Disapproved Appointment of
[3] Rollo, p. 21 b.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Should be “Esleta”, See rollo, p. 2.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Now Associate Justice of this Court.
[24] Rollo, pp. 75-76.
[25] Corpuz
v. Ramiterre, A.M. No. P-04-1779, November 25, 2005; Wooden v. Civil
Service Commission, G.R. No. 152884, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 512, 526;
Alabastro v. Moncada, A.M. No.
P-04-1887,
[26] Concerned
Citizen v. Gabral, A.M. No. P-05-2098, December 15, 2005; Corpuz v.
Ramiterre, supra; Concerned Employee v. Generoso, A.M. No.
2004-33-SC, August 24, 2005, 467 SCRA 614, 624; Re: Administrative Case for
Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary I, and Angelita C. Esmerio,
Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, A.M. No.
2001-7-SC & No. 2001-8-SC, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 1, 15; Disapproved Appointment of Noraina D.
Limgas as Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Marawi City,
A.M. No. 04-10-619-RTC, February 10, 2005, 450 SCRA 560, 566; Re:
Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document:
Benjamin R. Katly, Information Technology Officer I, Systems Development for
Judicial Application Division, MISO, A.M. No. 2003-9-SC, March 25, 2004,
426 SCRA 236, 242.
[27] Re:
Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document:
Benjamin R. Katly, supra.
[28] See Civil Service Commission v.
Cayobit, supra note 1, at 363.
[29] Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, 435 Phil. 1, 11 (2002); Disapproved Appointment of Limgas, supra note 26.
[30] See Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, supra at 10.
[31] Id.
[32] Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Quilantang, 413 Phil. 13, 23 (2001).
[33] Supra note 26.
[34]
[35]
[36] Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, supra note 29, at 11.
[37] Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document:Benjamin Katly, supra note 26, at 242.