A.M. No. 06-12-720-RTC

Case Summary (A.M. No. 06-12-720-RTC)

Factual Background

The respondent’s appointment to the position of Clerk III required CSC approval. In support of his promotional appointment, he submitted a Personal Data Sheet (PDS) dated April 8, 2005, stating that he was a Career Service Sub-Professional eligible. He also submitted a Report of Rating, allegedly issued by the CSC, showing that he passed the Career Service Sub-Professional examination held in Pasig, Rizal on November 20, 1977, with a rating of 78.77%.

After submission to the CSC, CSC Director II Cardito L. Callangan, in a letter dated October 14, 2005, informed the court administrator that the promotional appointment was disapproved pursuant to Sections 7 and 9, Rule V of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and other pertinent Civil Service laws. The CSC’s verification involved an Integrated Records Management Office certification showing that the respondent’s name was not included in the CSC Passed/Failed Masterlist of eligibles. The certification further showed that the claimed eligibility belonged to the respondent’s brother, Reynaldo C. De Leon.

The CSC discovered that Reynaldo’s name was tampered in the authenticated CSC Report of Rating dated July 18, 2005 that the respondent submitted.

CSC Disapproval and Referral for Administrative Action

Following the CSC’s disapproval, the OCA, on November 25, 2005, directed the respondent to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for falsification and misrepresentation. He did not file a comment, despite an extension request.

Subsequently, on November 20, 2006, the CSC filed a Formal Charge for Dishonesty against him in Adm. Case No. 06-11-005. The CSC required the respondent, within five (5) days from receipt of the formal charge, to submit an answer under oath, with affidavits of witnesses and supporting documentary evidence.

The respondent complied by filing a counter-affidavit. In it, he maintained that: first, he inadvertently included his brother Reynaldo’s Career Service Sub-Professional eligibility; second, he did not tamper with Reynaldo’s Report of Rating but he carelessly and unintentionally included it with his application papers to the Supreme Court; and third, he only noticed the inclusion about a week after he submitted his application papers.

Despite his request that the formal charge be dismissed for lack of basis and insufficient evidence, he later submitted an Explanation/Comment only after further directives. This was filed on May 4, 2007.

Thereafter, recognizing the implications of what he had earlier submitted, the respondent eventually admitted that he had changed the name of his younger brother Reynaldo to Godofredo in the authenticated CSC Report of Rating he submitted to the Court. He sought mercy, explaining that his family’s welfare motivated his actions.

OCA Evaluation and Recommended Penalty

On September 26, 2007, the matter was referred to the OCA and the Chairperson, Selection and Promotion Board, Lower Courts, for evaluation, report, and recommendation. In a Memorandum dated January 4, 2008 for Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepano found the respondent guilty of Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document. She recommended dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any government office, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

The OCA framed the case in terms of the judiciary’s demand for integrity. It cited the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility under Republic Act No. 6713, and emphasized that in the judiciary, every employee must exemplify integrity, rectitude, and honesty. It characterized dishonesty as a malevolent act without place in public service, particularly for those involved in dispensing justice.

The OCA also addressed the respondent’s inconsistent positions. It contrasted his counter-affidavit claim of inadvertence and lack of tampering with the verified statements in his PDS, and it treated his eventual admission as acknowledging the falsification only when confronted with the evidentiary situation.

The Court’s Legal Reasoning on Dishonesty and Falsification

The Supreme Court adopted the OCA’s characterization of the respondent’s acts as falling within the definition of dishonesty and falsification. The Court held that dishonesty exists when falsity is made in any material fact, or when fraud or deception is practiced, and it described dishonesty as implying a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud, and as indicating untrustworthiness and lack of integrity and probity.

The Court found that the respondent’s acts of falsifying and submitting a falsified Certificate of Eligibility and making false statements in his PDS squarely fit these concepts. It therefore concluded that he was liable for acts of dishonesty and falsification of public document, which it treated as grave offenses under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations. It further reasoned that such grave offenses warrant dismissal even if it is a first offense.

The Court addressed the respondent’s asserted motive—his “extreme desire to be promoted for the benefit of his family”—and it held that even such motivation did not justify the transgression of the law and the judiciary’s standards. It also rejected the argument that remorse would mitigate, explaining that proven unfitness for judiciary service by reason of dishonesty renders remorse insufficient.

In support of its stance on spurious eligibility documents and dishonesty in promotion applications, the Court cited Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana. In that case, the respondent therein submitte

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 06-12-720-RTC)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case arose as an administrative matter for the disapproval of the promotional appointment of Godofredo C. De Leon from Utility Worker I to Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Manila.
The matter involved the Civil Service Commission (CSC) review and disapproval of the appointment pursuant to Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and pertinent civil service rules.
The disapproval proceeded to dismissal of the respondent after the Court found dishonesty and falsification.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted evaluation and recommendation, and the matter was ultimately decided by the Court En Banc.

Key Factual Allegations

The respondent’s promotional appointment was forwarded to the CSC for approval on September 16, 2005.
In support of his appointment, the respondent submitted a Personal Data Sheet (PDS) dated April 8, 2005 claiming he was a Career Service Sub-Professional eligible.
The respondent also submitted a Report of Rating allegedly issued by the CSC, showing that he passed the relevant Career Service Sub-Professional examination held in Pasig, Rizal on November 20, 1977, with a rating of 78.77%.
The CSC disapproved the appointment through a letter dated October 14, 2005, invoking Sections 7 and 9, Rule V of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and other civil service laws.
An Integrated Records Management Office certification showed that the respondent’s name did not appear in the Passed/Failed Masterlist of eligibles.
The records further indicated that the eligibility claimed by the respondent belonged to his brother, Reynaldo C. De Leon.
It appeared that the eligibility being claimed was connected to a tampered authenticated Report of Rating submitted by the respondent, where Reynaldo’s name was altered to Godofredo.
After the appointment disapproval, the OCA directed the respondent on November 25, 2005 to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken for falsification and misrepresentation.
The respondent initially did not file a comment despite a request for extension, and the CSC then filed a Formal Charge for Dishonesty on November 20, 2006, docketed as Adm. Case No. 06-11-005.
The CSC required the respondent to submit an answer under oath with supporting affidavits and documentary evidence within five days from receipt.
In his counter-affidavit to the CSC, the respondent claimed he inadvertently included his brother’s eligibility documents, insisted he did not tamper the report of rating, and stated he noticed the inclusion about a week after submitting his application papers to the Court.
After further directives, the respondent submitted an Explanation/Comment on May 4, 2007.
Later, the respondent admitted that he changed the name of his brother Reynaldo to Godofredo in the authenticated CSC Report of Rating he submitted, pleading for mitigation based on family welfare.
The OCA ultimately found the respondent guilty of Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document and recommended dismissal.

Issues Presented

Whether the respondent committed dishonesty and falsification in connection with his application and the submitted eligibility documents for promotion to Clerk III.
Whether the CSC’s disapproval of the promotional appointment was justified under Sections 7 and 9, Rule V of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292.
Whether the proven acts warranted the penalty of dismissal from service with the corresponding civil service consequences.

Statutory and Rule Bases

The Court relied on Sections 7 and 9, Rule V of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 governing the CSC’s disapproval of appointments based on material false statements and deception or fraud.
Section 7 was invoked to disapprove an appointment where the appointee intentionally made a false statement of a material fact or practiced or attempted deception or fraud in connection with the appointment, or