Republic of the
EN BANC
|
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, |
|
A.M.
No. P-05-1985 |
|
Complainant, |
|
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2126-P) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUNO,
C. J. |
|
|
|
QUISUMBING, |
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, |
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, |
|
|
|
CARPIO, |
|
- versus - |
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CARPIO-MORALES,
|
|
|
|
AZCUNA,
|
|
|
|
TINGA, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
|
|
GARCIA, |
|
|
|
VELASCO, JR., and |
|
|
|
NACHURA, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
July
26, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
PER CURIAM:
On November
9, 2004,[1] the Civil
Service Commission (CSC), in Administrative Case No. 96-07-82, found Santos Enrie P. Perocho, Jr.
(respondent), Process Server, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 161, Mandaluyong City, guilty of dishonesty
and dismissed him from the service with disqualification from holding public office
and from taking government examinations in the service, as well
as with forfeiture of retirement benefits.
The
facts, as found by the CSC, are as follows:
On
However, upon examination of the
records of the Examination and Placement Services Division (EPSD) of the Civil
Service Commission it was disclosed that his name was not in the
Register of Eligibles in the Career Service Professional
Examination held on
A copy of the formal charge was
furnished respondent requiring him to file his Answer. Respondent did not submit his Answer and as a
consequence thereof he was deemed to have waived his right to submit the same. During the formal investigation the
prosecution presented Rosie Perlas, CS Field Office personnel who testified to
confirm the document submitted by respondent in support of his appointment and
Bella A. Mitra, Officer-in-Charge, Examination and Placement Service Division
(EPSD) of the Civil Service Commission who brought before the Hearing Officer
the Register of Eligibles who took and
passed the April 17, 1994 Career Service Professional Examination. After a judicious scrutiny of the documentary
and testimonial evidence adduced, respondent Perocho,
Jr., was found guilty of the offense charged, and was meted out the penalty of
dismissal from the service. In addition,
the accessory penalties of disqualification from holding public office,
forfeiture of retirement benefits and from taking government examination in the
service was likewise imposed against the herein respondent.[2]
Upon Report
dated
Respondent, through counsel, filed his Comment dated
In a Resolution dated
In a Report dated
Respondent admitted having
accomplished Exhibit “A”. He said that
he had typewritten the information required by questions, except No. 18. He denied having typewritten anything in the
space for Item No. 18 and he did not know who made the entries thereon. After filling out the blanks, except Item No.
18, he signed the same Exhibit “A” and gave it to Maog
and forgot all about it until the present case was filed against him.
On cross-examination respondent
repeatedly denied having any knowledge as to who or how the entry (Exhibit
“A-1”) was made in his PDS (Exhibit “A”) because he did not make any such
entry. Respondent also admitted that he
was the one who accomplished and signed another PDS dated
On
Respondent's witness Joseph Pabillano declared that in March 1996, he was an “errand
boy” at the Regional Trial Court [i]n Barrio Kapitolyo,
It is clear from the documents
submitted by the complainant that there was an attempt to pass off a
non-eligible for appointment to a position which required civil service eligibility. Had the CSC been less alert, respondent's
appointment as Clerk III may have been attested to. The question to be decided here is who the
author of the attempt was.
The complainant claims that it was
the respondent who inserted the data that he had the appropriate civil service
eligibility for the position of Clerk III which he had applied for. The complainant further insists that it was
respondent who submitted the spurious certificate of eligibility (Exhibit “E”)
to the Personnel Office of the OCA as one of the documents supporting his
application for the position of Clerk III.
x x x x
The undersigned is convinced that
respondent was enticed by persons unknown to apply for the position of Clerk
III. He must have been assured by said
persons that although he was not an eligible, a certificate could be obtained
somewhere. It is entirely possible that
respondent must have spent some funds to secure Exhibit “E” and perhaps the
late Carlos Maog was instrumental in persuading him
to take the risk of submitting an application for a position for which he was
not qualified as well as procuring Exhibit “E”.
Unfortunately, Sheriff Carlos Maog is dead. He can
no longer take the stand to support the assertion of the respondent. But even if he were alive, it is doubtful
that he would have admitted to being responsible for the procurement of a fake
certificate of eligibility since he would be jeopardizing his own employment
because he could be found guilty of dishonesty which merits the penalty of dismissal
even if committed the first time.
x x x x
The respondent is charged with
dishonesty for having submitted a spurious certificate of eligibility to
support his application for the position of Clerk III. The Supreme Court has consistently held that
“in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of or who
used a forged document is the forger or the one who caused the forgery”. x x x
The respondent has clearly committed
act of dishonesty which is defined by the CSC as “any act which shows lack of
integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray. It consists of
an intent to violate the truth, in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or
connected with the performance of his duties x x x.
x x x x
x x x [I]t is
evident that respondent has committed the grave offense of dishonesty by
procuring and using a forged certificate of eligibility which he submitted with
his application for the position of Clerk III.
The CSC found enough evidence to hold respondent responsible for the
procurement of Exhibit “E”. The CSC
correctly meted the penalty of “dismissal from the service” with
“disqualification from holding public office, forfeiture of retirement benefits
and from taking government examinations in the service” as the same is well
supported by the evidence on record.[7]
and recommended that respondent be found guilty of
dishonesty and grave misconduct and be dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of retirement and other benefits, except earned leave credits, and with perpetual disqualification from re-employment
in any government instrumentality or government-owned or controlled
corporation.
In a Memorandum dated
We
have carefully scrutinized the records of the case and we are in full accord
with the findings of the CSC, the Investigating Officer and the
Court Administrator that respondent is guilty of Dishonesty.
Complainant
charges respondent with dishonesty and grave misconduct through falsification
of his PDS. Dishonesty is 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.”[8] Thus, dishonesty, like bad faith, is not
simply bad judgment or negligence.
Dishonesty is a question of intention.
In ascertaining the intention of a person accused of dishonesty, consideration
must be taken not only of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the
act committed by the respondent, but also of his state of mind at the time the
offense was committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the
purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of
reasoning he could have had at that moment.[9]
In Advincula v. Dicen,[10] the Court emphasized that the PDS is an official document
required of a government employee and official by the CSC. It is the repository of all information about
any government employee and official regarding his personal background,
qualification, and eligibility.[11] Since truthful completion of
the PDS is a requirement for
employment in the judiciary, the importance of answering the same with candor
need not be gainsaid.[12] Concealment of any
information in the PDS, therefore, warrants disciplinary action against the
erring employee.
In Civil
Service Commission v. Sta. Ana,[13] the
Court held as follows:
By
making a false statement in his personal data sheet to enhance his
qualification and increase his chances of being considered for promotion, which
in fact happened because he was issued an appointment as HRMO III by then Chief
Justice Andres Narvasa, respondent prejudiced the
other qualified aspirants to the same position.
It does not matter that respondent did not actually assume the position
and receive salaries and benefits pertaining thereto. The law does not require that actual injury
to a third person be present. What is necessary
is that there be intent to injure.
Moreover, in People v. Po Giok To, it is held that
when official documents are falsified, “the intent to injure a third person
need not be present because the principal thing punished is the violation of
the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein proclaimed.[14]
Respondent
contends that he had no knowledge that an appointment for the position of Clerk
III was issued in his favor by Deputy Court Administrator Suarez which,
however, was not attested to by the CSC due to the timely discovery by the
complainant of the spurious certificate of eligibility.
It matters not that respondent did not
receive the appointment or assume the position of Clerk III. His act of indicating in his PDS that he is eligible,
when in fact he is not, manifests his intent to injure. However, although no
pecuniary damage was incurred by the government, there was still falsification
of an official document that constitutes gross dishonesty which cannot be
countenanced. The Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees enunciates the State’s policy
of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public
service.[15] And no other office in the government service
exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an
employee than in the judiciary.[16]
Respondent's bare denial of the
allegations by the complainant pales in comparison with the documents presented
by the complainant during the investigation hearing. As rightly observed by the Investigating
Officer, and as consistently held by the Court, “in the absence of
satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of or who used a forged
document is the forger or the one who caused the forgery.”
It is unfortunate that Maog, the person alleged to have submitted the PDS of
respondent and who can shed light on the circumstances
surrounding the controversy, is already deceased.[17]
In Remolona v. Civil Service Commission,[18] the
Court ratiocinated in this wise:
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.[19]
We now delve into
the charge of grave misconduct.
Misconduct,
by uniform legal definition, is a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior as well as gross
negligence by a
public officer.[20] To constitute an administrative offense,
misconduct should relate to or be connected with the
performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[21] In this case, respondent's submission of his
PDS is not related to or connected with the performance of his official
functions and duties as a government employee.
The CSC and the investigating officer failed to show reasonable
connection that the offense committed constitutes grave misconduct. Thus, we find respondent guilty only of
dishonesty.
Under the Civil
Service Rules,[22]
dishonesty though committed only
for the first time by a public
servant, has a corresponding penalty of dismissal.
The Court has
repeatedly held that 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.[23] Respondent,
who, for the purpose of securing a permanent position, used a spurious
certificate of eligibility, cannot be said to have measured up to the standards
required of a public servant. This Court
will not tolerate dishonesty, for the judiciary deserves the best from all its employees.[24] Dishonesty
and falsification are malevolent acts that have no place in the judiciary.[25]
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds Santos
Enrie P. Perocho, Jr., Process
Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 161, Office of the Clerk of Court,
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO 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 |
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 |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-6.
[2]
[3]
[4] Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. is now a member of the Court.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Wooden
v. Civil Service Commission,
G.R. No. 152884,
[9]
[10] G.R. No. 162403,
[11]
[12] Bellosillo v. Rivera, 395 Phil. 180, 191 (2000).
[13] 435 Phil. 1 (2002).
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] TSN,
[18] 414 Phil. 590 (2001).
[19]
[20] Advincula v. Dicen, G.R. No. 162403,
[21] Civil
Service Commission v. Belagan, G.R. No. 132164,
[22] Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:
Section 52. Classification of Offenses. — Administrative offenses with
corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light,
depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
A The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:
1. Dishonesty — 1st Offense — Dismissal
2. Gross Neglect of Duty — 1st Offense —
Dismissal
3. Grave Misconduct — 1st Offense —
Dismissal
[23] Office
of the Court Administrator v. Capalan, A.M. No. P-05-2055,
[24]
[25] Pizarro
v. Villegas, 398 Phil.
837, 843 (2000).