A.M. No. P-10-2767 - Momongan vs. Sumayo

Antonio Exequiel A. Momongan, the complainant, charged respondent Primitivo A. Sumayo—Clerk III of RTC Cebu City, Branch 10—with Gross Dishonesty and Falsification of Public Documents.
A second complaint against Ariel A. Momongan, Process Server in the RTC, was dismissed as the position does not require civil service eligibility.

The central allegation against respondent Sumayo is that he misrepresented his qualifications by forging his civil service eligibility and falsely claiming to be a college graduate.
It was contended that someone else took the civil service examination in his stead and that he was deficient in one accounting subject in his curriculum, contrary to his claim of being a college graduate.
Respondent attempted to explain his academic record by stating that, due to his major in banking and finance and fulfillment of the requisite accounting units, he dropped the subject and was nevertheless awarded a diploma by the University of Visayas.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) coordinated with the University of Visayas, requesting a “Certification of [respondent’s] Graduation” which revealed that his record showed incomplete grades in Government Accounting and Auditing Part II.
The case was referred to the Executive Judge of RTC Cebu for further investigation.
During an investigation held on November 22, 2001, respondent admitted in his Personal Data Sheet that he had only stated “college level” and later unqualifiedly admitted that he did not graduate.
Respondent was ordered to submit certified copies of his Certificate of Eligibility from the Civil Service Commission, his Personal Data Sheet, and his Certificate of Graduation from the University of Visayas but failed to do so.
Instead of furnishing the required evidence, he filed a Manifestation arguing that the prosecution should produce its evidence.

The investigative judge concluded that respondent’s failure to produce documentary evidence amounted to an implicit admission of his lack of college graduation and civil service eligibility.
His misrepresentation was deemed an act of dishonesty—a serious offense that undermines the integrity and character required for judicial service.
The investigation emphasized that even satisfactory performance ratings in service could not redeem the fundamental deficiency in his credentials.

The matter was elevated through the administrative channels of the judiciary, reflecting the high premium placed on integrity and qualification in judicial service.
The decision underscored the expectation that court personnel must observe strict adherence to ethical and professional standards given the sensitive nature of their roles.

Did respondent Sumayo intentionally misstate his educational attainment and civil service eligibility in his employment records?
Is the lack of documentary evidence to support his claims sufficient to establish misrepresentation?

Does the respondent’s failure to submit the Certificate of Eligibility, his Personal Data Sheet, and the Certificate of Graduation justify the allegations of dishonesty and falsification?
Is the mere absence of documentation indicative of an intent to deceive, particularly when alternative explanations were provided?

Considering the position held by respondent Sumayo, is dismissal from service, with concomitant forfeiture of retirement benefits, a proportionate response to the established acts of dishonesty?
Does the case set a precedent for strict enforcement of ethical standards within the judiciary regardless of service length or prior performance ratings?