x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

 

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

I am constrained to register my dissent to the majority opinion penned by my esteemed colleague Madame Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, exonerating petitioner Derick D. Wooden of the charges proffered against him by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), for dishonesty through falsification of public document, arising from entries he made in his application for the Professional Board Examinations for Teachers (PBET) and his June 6, 1997 Personal Data Sheet (PDS).

 

The facts are not disputed:

 

Petitioner applied to join the March 1991 graduation rites for the degree of Bachelor of Secondary Education at Saint Louis University (Saint Louis) sometime in the second semester of school year 1990-1991, which application was approved, subject to his completion of a 6-unit deficiency to be taken in the summer term of 1991 or by May 1991.

 

Petitioner attended the said graduation rites of the College of Education of Saint Louis on March 24, 1991. The graduation programme [1] lists his name under those who were to graduate in May 1991. [2]

 

Petitioner thereafter enrolled for the summer term and completed his 6-unit deficiency in May 1991.

 

Sometime in September 1991, petitioner filed an application [3] for the PBET, indicating therein that he graduated from Saint Louis in March 1991. The application was approved on September 20, 1991. [4]

 

Upon petitioner's application for the release to him of his transcript of records with Saint Louis sometime in late October or early November, markedly prior to the scheduled PBET on November 10, 1991, he was notified that a reevaluation of his scholastic records revealed that he needed to complete a 3-unit deficiency in English.

 

Fully aware of his 3-unit deficiency to complete his degree, which degree was a prerequisite for the PBET, petitioner took said examinations on November 10, 1991.

 

Thereafter, petitioner enrolled in Saint Louis and completed the 3-unit subject deficiency in the second semester of school year 1991-1992.

 

Petitioner's Official Transcript of Records [5] the issuance for which he requested in the later part of the 1^st Semester of School Year 1991-1992 and which he later adduced during the proceedings before the CSC indicates that he 'graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Secondary Education as of March 28, 1992 .

 

On June 8, 1992, the results of the PBET were released. Per Report of Rating [6] issued by the National Board for Teachers, petitioner passed the examinations with a rating of 76.38%.

 

On June 6, 1997, petitioner filed his PDS [7] in connection with his promotional appointment as Teacher I of Guinzadan National High School, Bauko, Mountain Province, indicating therein that he earned his Secondary Education degree at Saint Louis with inclusive dates of attendance from 1987-1991 and that he took the PBET in 1992 .

 

In his November 12, 1997 Answer [8] to the complaint at bar filed before the CSC, petitioner proffered the following explanation, apparently to show good faith in representing in his application for the PBET that he graduated from Saint Louis in March 1991 and in indicating in his PDS that he earned his Secondary Education degree with inclusive dates of attendance from 1987-1991 and took the PBET examination in 1992, quoted verbatim:

 

x x x

 

3. THAT, respondent himself, even up to the present time, keeps on being confused on the actual date of his graduation due to the following circumstances:

 

3.1 That in the School Year 1990-1991, he applied to join the graduation rites in March, 1991 which was approved, although he has some deficiencies for Summer 1991, so that he was even appointed as Staff Coordinator of the Louisian Educator '91 xxx

 

3.2 That he joined the graduation rites/commencement exercises held on March 24, 1991 as evidenced by a copy of the souvenir programme xxx

 

3.3 That he was also featured in the said annual of the College of Education, Saint Louis University, the Louisian Educator '91 xxx

 

3.4 That due to the above, he honestly believed all the time that he graduated in March, 1991 with some deficiencies to be completed in May, 1991;

 

3.5 That he indeed completed his deficiencies in the summer of May, 1991;

 

x x x

 

3.7 That, however, it was only in the latter part of the First Semester of School Year 1991-1992 when he applied for a copy of his Transcript of Records that he was informed of a re-evaluation thereof and that he lacks another three (3) units of English major Subject, with which, had it been told him earlier, he could have enrolled said additional English Major Subject during the Summer Term of May, 1991 when he took up only six (6) units which was originally told him as his deficiency;

x x x

 

3.9 xxx it was already instilled in the mind of respondent that he graduated in March, 1991 with belatedly completed deficiencies, and that he was not too technical on the meaning of graduation with no intent whatsoever of causing prejudice to anyone or even the government and without taking advantage thereof which he believes he has not done;

4. THAT, said confusion on the part of respondent on his particular date of graduation and on the exact meaning of graduation itself carried on until the time he applied for PBET Examination and up to the time he accomplished his Personal Data Sheet subjects of this case so that the entries were made in the honest belief that he graduated on March 24, 1991 with completions which extended up to 1992;

 

x x x [9] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

 

 

In exonerating petitioner from any liability, the majority opinion credits him with good faith, declaring that 'when petitioner wrote in his PDS that he finished BSED from SLU with inclusive dates of attendance form 1987-1991; and when he answered in his application to take the PBET that he graduated in March, 1991, he did so in good faith under a well-founded belief that he graduated in March, 1991. It goes on to conclude that 'at the time he applied for the PBET sometime in September 1991 and when he took the examination on November 10, 1991, he acted under facts which he honestly and in good faith believed to be true and under conditions obtaining at the time and that 'as borne out by the chronology of events, petitioner's knowledge at the time he applied for and took the PBET was untainted by any fact that should have put him in inquiry as to his qualification.

 

Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting 'honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put one upon inquiry; [10] an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render the transaction unconscientious. [11]

 

In the case at bar, several circumstances conspire against petitioner's self-serving protestations of good faith.

 

While indeed he attended the graduation rites of the College of Education of Saint Louis in March 24, 1991, when he applied to join said rites, he was aware that he had a 6-unit deficiency which he was to complete during the summer term of 1991 or in May 1991; while he was included in the list of graduates for the year 1991 in the graduation programme, the programme lists his name as belonging to those who would graduate in May of that year.

 

Clearly, petitioner committed a misrepresentation in his PBET application filed in September 1991 in indicating that he graduated from Saint Louis in March 1991.

 

As found by Atty. Maria Elnora D. Puday, Hearing Officer of the CSC Cordillera Administrative Region, in her Investigation Report [12] of September 23, 1998:

 

xxx in his Application for said examination, he stated therein that he finished 'BSED major in English at Saint Louis University on March, 1991. xxx

 

After a careful evaluation of the records, we find no merit to the contention of good faith of Derick Wooden. It is a fact that not all whose names and pictures appear in an annual of a certain College are considered graduates. This is so because annuals are prepared before the graduation and candidates for graduation are the ones (though not mandatory) advised to subscribe. Further, in the Graduation Programme (Annex 'B'), Derick Wooden is listed below the caption May, 1991 meaning he is (sic) not yet a graduate as of March 1991 because he has to complete some deficiencies. Thus, stating March 1991 as his year of graduation is a clear misrepresentation xxx

 

xxx respondent xxx knew that he had some deficiencies to be completed in May, 1991 xxx [13] (Underscoring supplied)

 

 

More importantly, at the time he took the PBET on November 10, 1991, petitioner very well knew that he was not qualified, as he was notified by Saint Louis in late October or early November that he still had a 3-unit subject deficiency which he had to complete before he could obtain his Secondary Education degree, a glaring impediment that rendered him ineligible to take the examinations. In fact he took the required 3-unit subject only in the second semester of school year 1991-1992 or after taking the PBET.

 

When petitioner thus took the examinations on November 10, 1991 despite the information of Saint Louis that he still had a 3-unit subject deficiency, good faith may not be accorded.

 

Parenthetically, while the majority opinion declares that 'petitioner enrolled in SLU, under protest for the subject deficiency, the records reveal that during said period, petitioner never raised the matter before Saint Louis administrative officials. He in fact, by his own information, 'decided to take the matter in stride and simply complete the required units. [14]

Petitioner filed his PDS on June 6, 1997 and misrepresented that he earned his Secondary Education degree in 1991, the notation in his Official Transcript of Records that he graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Secondary Education as of March 20, 1992 notwithstanding. Contrary to the majority opinion, in light of the totality of the attendant circumstances, I take petitioner's writing of the year 1992 as the date of the PBET, instead of November 1991, as indicium of lack of good faith. As did the CSC, I find that such inaccurate datum appears to have been intentionally furnished to conceal his ineligibility when he took the examinations in November 1991.

 

Dishonesty is 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 implies a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of fairness and straightforwardness. [15]

 

Misrepresentation by a government employee as to his educational attainment contained in a sworn application for civil service examination is an act of dishonesty and is expressly made a ground for disciplinary action under the Civil Service Rules. [16]

 

Making a false statement in a PDS required under Civil Service Rules and Regulations for employment in the government amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document which warrant dismissal from the service upon commission of the first offense. [17] The penalty of dismissal carries with it the cancellation of eligibility and the disqualification for re-employment in the government service. [18]

 

In his petition before this Court, petitioner, at all events, argues that 'at the time the [questioned] entry was made in his PDS, it was very immaterial whether he graduated in 1991 or 1992, the important fact being that he graduated and is thus qualified for employment. [19] To my mind, the following succinct refutation by the Court of Appeals in its March 31, 2001 Decision [20] sustaining the CSC decision dismissing petitioner squarely addresses this argument: '[P]etitioner's belated compliance with his academic deficiencies as required by the school where he was employed does not erase the fact that at the time he filled in the PBET and PDS forms, he was committing an act of dishonesty by entering thereon false or untrue information. [21]

 

All told, the circumstances surrounding the case do not, to my view, warrant a finding that petitioner's actuations were impelled merely by an honest mistake of fact as declared by the majority opinion. His allegations of good faith cannot be taken hook, line and sinker when the evidence glaringly reveals otherwise.

 

I, therefore, vote to DENY the petition.

 

 

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice