EN BANC
ADMINISTRATIVE
CASE
FOR DISHONESTY AND
FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIALDOCUMENT AGAINST
NOEL V. LUNA, SC CHIEF JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER,
SYSTEMS PLANNING
AND PROJECT EVALUATION
(SPPE) DIVISION, MISO.chanrobles virtual law library
A.M.
No.
2003-7-SC
December 15, 2003
R O S O L U T I O
N
PER
CURIAM:
This administrative
matter stems from a letter,[1]
dated November 12, 2002, of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). It
referred
to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) a text message, which
the
CSC received under its TEXTCSC Project, seeking an investigation into
the
qualifications of respondent Noel V. Luna, SC Chief Judicial Staff
Officer,
Systems Planning and Project Evaluation Division, Management
Information
Systems Office (MISO), Supreme Court.
The text message reads
as follows:
Please check the PDS
of Noel V. Luna. As of now he is holding a position of SC Chief
Judicial
Staff Officer-PERMANENT position. He always claim 2 be a grad in the
personal
data sheet Tnx. Concern employee of d court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It appears that from
May 5, 1986, until February 28, 1990, Noel V. Luna served as a
contractual
employee in the Office of the Reporter, Supreme Court. In his Personal
Data Sheet (PDS), which became one of the bases for his appointment and
its eventual renewal, respondent indicated his educational attainment
as
5th Year College. On March 1, 1990, when he was appointed to a
permanent
position as Information Officer I, Editorial Division, Office of the
Reporter,
his updated PDS stated that he reached 5th year college.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a few years, respondent
was favorably recommended to the position of Information Officer II in
the Systems Planning and Project Evaluation Division, MISO, a position
requiring a bachelor's degree in Computer Science or Computer
Engineering
and relevant experience of three (3) years. He was promoted to the
position
on April 28, 1992.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the time respondent
was recommended for promotion, Memorandum Circular No. 23, s. 1991 was
still effective. Said Circular allowed deficiencies in education to be
substituted with one (1) year of specialized/relevant experience, six
(6)
months of relevant training or two hundred (200) hours consisting of
one
or more specialized/relevant training programs or seminars.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 1, 1995, the
position respondent was holding was upgraded to SC Supervising Judicial
Staff Officer.[5]
In November 1997, respondent
applied for the position SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, MISO, a
position
that had the following qualification requirements:
1)
Bachelor's
degree relevant to the job;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2) Four years in
position/s
involving management and supervision;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3) 24 hours training
in management and supervision; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4) Career Service
Professional
Eligibility.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon the favorable
recommendation
of the members of the Selection and Promotion Board (SPB), respondent
was
appointed Chief Judicial Staff Officer on January 13, 1998. In the PDS
that he accomplished on January 15, 1998, respondent indicated that he
had obtained the degree in BS Electricla Engineering from 1982-1987.[6]
His appointment was subsequently confirmed and attested by the Civil
Service
Commission.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After almost four (4)
years, the CSC, in a letter[8]
dated November 12, 2002, referred the aforecited text message to the
Office
of the Court Administrator. The said office, in turn, referred the
letter
of the CSC to the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) for
appropriate
action.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Acting on the referral,
the OAS sought to verify respondent's educational attainment from the
Lyceum
of the Philippines, the university where the respondent is known to
have
attended college.[9]
In response, Ms. Maria Teresa O. Pilapil, the school registrar, issued
a certification on April 9, 2003. She stated that, "Mr. Luna lacks 54
units
to complete the academic requirements of the prescribed course leading
to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering as of
First
Semester of School Year 1986-1987."[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In view of what appeared
to be a discrepancy if not outright anomaly in the qualification
records
pertaining to the appointment of respondent as SC Chief Judicial Staff
Officer of the SPPED, MISO, the OAS directed respondent on April 15,
2003,[11]
to submit a written comment within five (5) working days and explain
why
no disciplinary action should be taken against him for dishonesty and
falsification
of official document.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his comment dated
April 21, 2003, respondent admitted that he indeed did not possess the
degree of Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering. But he
asserted
that he never made any claim that he did. He averred that his lack of a
college degree is well known to his officemates, as he has never
concealed,
or even attempted to conceal, said fact. He also denied making a false
entry in his record.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to him, he
personally typed all the entries in his PDS, and when he submitted his
PDS, it already contained the necessary information in typewritten
form.
He added that he left blank all the items to which he had no response.
If he were indeed the author of the false information, respondent
argues,
there was no reason for him not to type in the entry since he could
just
as easily type it in as he typed the other entries. He likewise
asserted
that he was aware that insertions in completed documents need to be
authenticated
with a signature. Since there was no signature near the insertion, it
was
not he who made the insertion, respondent argued.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, respondent
expressed suspicion over the spurious entry in his PDS especially
because
the false entry has serious implications on his person. He proposed to
help the OAS in the investigation, and offered his wholehearted
cooperation.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 24, 2003, the
Complaints and Investigation Division, OAS, transmitted to the
Personnel
Division, OAS, the certification issued by the Office of the Registrar
of the Lyceum of the Philippines, respondent's comment, and
respondent's
PDS accomplished on January 15, 1998, for appropriate action.[14]
Correspondingly, the Personnel Division served a written request upon
the
Civil Service Commission, NCR, for the complete employment records on
file
of the respondent. The CSC granted the request and forwarded the
necessary
documents to the Personnel Division of the OAS.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 19, 2003,
Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, DCC and Chief Administrative Officer,
submitted
to the Chief Justice through the Clerk of Court, the result of the
investigation,
with formal hearings conducted on the matter. Her report recommended:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In view of
the foregoing, this Office, finds respondent Noel V. Luna, SC Chief
Judicial
Staff Officer, Systems Planning and Project Evaluation Division, MISO,
guilty of administrative offenses of Falsification of Official Document
and Dishonesty, and respectfully recommends that he be DISMISSED from
the
service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except his leave
credits,
if there is any, and with disqualification for re-employment in any
government
agency or government owned or controlled corporation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The matter is now
before
us to consider her findings and recommended sanction against respondent.
Respondent wants to
impress on us that it was not he who indicated, in handwritten form,
the
false entry "BS Electrical Engineering" in his Personal Data Sheet
(PDS)
but someone else. It must be noted, however, that all application
papers
including the PDS, whether for original or promotional appointment, are
initially submitted to, and processed by, the Secretariat of the
Selection
and Promotions Board (SPB) before the members of the Board would
recommend
a name from among the qualified applicants. Thus, respondent appears to
fault the Secretariat of the SPB as the one responsible for inserting
the
false information regarding his educational attainment in his PDS.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Yet, respondent was
the one seeking a promotional appointment. His interest in getting that
much-desired promotion cannot be overstressed. In contrast, the
Secretariat
of the SPB had no interest whatsoever in respondent's promotion other
than
to perform the duty of collating and processing application papers, and
preparing the matrices to be used by the Board in filling up vacant
positions
in the Court. Respondent stood to benefit by the coveted promotion, and
not the Secretariat. His chances of being promoted would have sunk if
it
had been starkly revealed that he had yet to finish his five-year
course
in B.S. Electrical Engineering. Without the handwritten entry of "BS
Electrical
Engineering" in the PDS, respondent could not qualify for the position
of SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the SPPE Division, MISO, because
it requires one to be a holder of a bachelor's degree.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, as a matter
of procedure, the Secretariat would have made the proper verification
from
respondent if it were true that respondent's PDS was silent with regard
to his educational attainment instead of supplying or writing in the
information
required. In the absence of credible evidence, the presumption of
regularity
in the performance of duties by the Secretariat prevails over
respondent's
unsubstantiated but self-serving assertions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, we note
that respondent made contradictory statements regarding material points
in this case. In no uncertain terms, respondent wrote in his comment,
"I
personally typed in all the entries in said PDS form, thus I am aware
of
all the information contained in the same. I am therefore aware that
the
entry was not made by me."[16]
But when asked what prompted him not to indicate his education
qualification
in his PDS, respondent answered, "Well candidly speaking ma'am. I was
not
actually the one who prepared or typed the entries [in] PDS. It was my
wife, Jocelyn Luna, who is also working at the MISO. She is the one who
takes care of my papers with the help of the secretaries like Melissa
and
the other employees."[17]
Such inconsistency does not jibe with one's practical experience of
veracity
and credibility. A. person telling the truth would not contradict
outright
a statement he has just made. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent asserted
during the hearings by the OAS that the new PDS form is different from
the old PDS form. This was in an attempt to lend credence to his claim
that he left the space for educational attainment in the new PDS form
blank.
The claim, however, would not exonerate respondent even if we accept it
as true. For then, respondent would be liable for suppression of a
material
fact. It is clear from the PDS form that his educational attainment is
being asked from him. This is clear from the heading Number of Units
Completed/Course
Title next to the column for Degree Earned (write NONE if not
graduated).
The filing of a PDS is required in connection with the promotion to a
higher
position and the contenders for promotion have the legal obligation to
disclose the truth.[18]
Any willful concealment of facts in the Personal Data Sheet constitutes
mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Even granting that Item
No. 17 of the new PDS form, under the table-heading Degree Earned
(write
NONE if not graduated), is extremely difficult to understand and may be
understood to mean that the item should be left blank, respondent's
claim
of innocence could not be accepted. This is because the adjacent column
under the table-heading Number of Units Completed/Course Title would
inevitably
leave the applicant with no option but to indicate the exact extent of
his college education. It became a subtle but deliberate attempt to
perpetuate
a falsehood when respondent indicated "1982-1987," or a span of five
years,
as his exclusive dates of school attendance. For significantly this
period
is needed to finish BS Electrical Engineering, a five-year course.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Incidentally, a comparison
of the old PDS form, which respondent had accomplished twice (once in
1990
and again in 1992), with the new PDS form, which is the basis of the
instant
administrative charge, reveals that the two forms do not differ
substantially
in terms of the requirement to disclose one's educational attainment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It bears repeating that
every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity,
uprightness,
and honesty.[20]
Like any public servant, he must exhibit the highest sense of honesty
and
integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his
personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the
court's
good name and standing.[21]
It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is
mirrored
in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work
thereat,
from the judge to the lowest of its personnel.[22]
Court personnel have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards
of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in
order
to preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice.[23]
Respondent in this case failed to meet the stringent standards set for
a judicial employee; hence, he does not deserve to remain in the office
staff of the judiciary.cralaw:red
The accomplishment of
the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) is required under Civil Service Rules and
Regulations for employment in the government. The making of an
untruthful
statement therein amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an
official
document that warrant dismissal from the service even on the first
offense.[24]
Of these offenses, respondent is clearly liable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Section 23,[25]
Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292[26]
and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, dishonesty and falsification of
public document are considered grave offenses for which the penalty of
dismissal is prescribed. Section 9 of the said Rule likewise provides
that
"The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of
eligibility,
forfeiture of leave credits, and retirement benefits, and the
disqualification
for re-employment in the government service. This penalty is without
prejudice
to criminal liability of the respondent."[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
NOEL V. LUNA, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Systems Planning and
Project
Evaluation Division, MISO, is found guilty of dishonesty and
falsification
of public document thereby warranting his DISMISSAL from the service
with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits,
and
with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or agency of the
government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations effective
immediately.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and
Tinga,
JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
See Letter of CSC Asst. Commissioner Nelson Acebedo dated November 12,
2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
See Sealed Report, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
See Certification dated May 9, 2003, issued by Mr. Jacinto S. Serrano,
SC Judicial Staff Officer, Personnel Division, OAS.
[4]
See Sealed Report, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
See PDS dated January 15, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Sealed Report, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Supra, note 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
See Letter of Atty. Eden Candelaria dated December 12, 2002 to the
Registrar's
Office of the Lyceum of the Philippines.
[10]
Certification dated April 9, 2003, issued by Maria Teresa Pilapil,
Registrar,
Lyceum of the Philippines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
See Memorandum of Atty. Eden Candelaria dated April 15, 2003 to
respondent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Respondent's Comment dated April 21, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
See Memorandum of Atty. Edwin B. Andrada, dated April 24, 2003, to
respondent.
[15]
See Letter of Arturo SJ. Panaligan, dated May 9, 2003, to Mr. Jacinto
S.
Serrano.
[16]
Respondent's Comment dated April 21, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
TSN, 16 May 2003, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Lumancas v. Intas, G.R. No. 133472, 5 December 2000, 347 SCRA 22, 34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Bautista v. Navarro, No. L-46199, 29 June 1982, 114 SCRA 794, 798.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[20]
Canillas v. Pelayo, A.M. No. P-02-1575, 1 August 2002, 386 SCRA 12, 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Lauro v. Lauro, A.M. No. P-91-642, 6 June 2001, 358 SCRA 405, 409–410.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
CSC v. Sta. Ana, A.M. No. P-03-1696, 30 April 2003, p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
De Guzman v. Delos Santos, A.M. No. 2002-8-SC, 18 December 2002, p. 13.
[25]
Sec. 23. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are
classified
into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its
nature
and effects of said acts on the government service.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
following are grave offenses with its corresponding penalties:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) Dishonesty (1st Offense, Dismissal)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(f) Falsification of official document (1st Offense, Dismissal)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Administrative Code of 1987.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Supra, note 22 at 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |