JUANITO BENAOJAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARIANO LACSON, RESPONDENT.

In a sworn
letter-complaint dated December 28, 1977, Juanito Benaojan, Interpreter and Special Deputy, Court of First
Instance of Lanao del Norte, Iligan
City, charged respondent Mariano Lacson, Clerk, Court
of First Instance of Lanao del Sur,
Branch I, Marawi City of having falsified his
personal data sheets, one subscribed before Asst. Provincial Fiscal Benedicto A. Lagrosa of Lanao del Norte on May 23, 1974^[1] and another before the Hon. Executive
District Judge Moises Dalisay,
Sr., Court of First Instance, Branch V, Iligan City
on August 19, 1975^[2] with deliberate intention to gain promotional
appointments in the government service, specifically, in the narration of facts
regarding his college education, to wit:

“College/University-U.E. (Manila)
A.A. (Pre-law)

1950-1952 – Graduate

U.M. (Manila)
3rd Year Law

1952-1955

U.M. (Manila)
4th Year Law

1966-1967 –
Graduate

P.M.I. (Manila)
– 1st Year

1966-67 – Customs
Adm.”

Complainant
alleged that respondent is only a high school graduate and had never studied
law in the University of the East nor in the University of Manila as shown by the certifications issued to
that effect by the respective registrars of said institutions both dated July 30,
1976.^{[3] &[4]}

In his answer of March
31, 1977, respondent averred, inter alia,
that the questioned personal data sheets have never been used by him in seeking
promotion or in any transaction for his retention in the service; that it is
essential to the commission of the crime of falsification of public documents
under Articles 171(4) and 172(1) of the Revised Penal Code that there be not
only intent to injure third persons but also an obligation to disclose the
facts; that in this instant case, no injury had been done, much less to the
complainant Juanito Benaojan.^[5]

On May 31,
1978, We referred
the case to Acting Executive District Judge, Hon. Zain
B. Angas, of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur, Marawi City for investigation, report and
recommendation.  In accordance with the
referral, Judge Zain B. Angas
conducted several hearings and on the basis of the documentary and testimonial
evidence of the parties, submitted to this Court his report and recommendation,
substantively quoted as follows:

xxxxx                                     xxxxx                                       xxxxx

“It is established that the respondent is a Clerk in the Court
of First Instance, Branch I, Marawi City, and is
presently detailed in the Court of First Instance at Iligan
City; that the respondent was recommended as Deputy Clerk of Court, Court of
First Instance, Branch IV, Iligan City and to support
this recommendation, he attached his information sheet, dated August 19, 1975,
(Exh. “B”); that the respondent in
compliance with the Memorandum Circular (unnumbered), dated April 29, 1975, of Honorable Chief
Justice Querube Makalintal,
requiring all personnel of the Courts of First Instance, among others, to
accomplish their Information Sheet and Service Record Form to update their
personal files (Exh. “H”), the respondent
accomplished and filed with the Supreme Court his Information Sheet and Service
Record Form, dated May 23, 1975
(Exh. “C” to “C-5”).  In both information sheets the respondent
made it appear that he is a graduate in Associate in Arts (Pre-Law) of the
University of the East, Manila, in 1952 and a graduate of law of the University
of Manila, Manila in 1967; that these information sheets are now filed in the
records of the Supreme Court; that xerox copies of
these information sheets were obtained by the complainant from the Supreme
Court as a result of his letter-request dated July 28, 1976 (Exh. “A”); that the University
of Manila has no “such name of
the respondent as student who has been enrolled or graduated from the College
of Law” of the University (Exh. “F”); that the records of the University of
the East failed to show that the respondent was enrolled in that institution (Exh. “G”).

“Respondent in his answer (and his written evidence which is a
substantial reproduction of his answer) maintains that his information sheet,
dated August 19, 1975 (Exh. “B”), was made and filed for no specific
purpose.  It was not intended to seek
any promotional appointment.  The
assertion is contrary to Annex “O” of his answer (p. 55, Records)
which shows that he “was recommended to the position of Deputy Clerk of
Court, CFI and/or Clerk III in CFI, Branch V. 
The evidence disclosed that this information sheet was used to accompany
that recommendation.  It was used to show
his qualifications to the position to which he was recommended.

“Respondent also maintains that his information sheet, dated
May 23, 1975, was ‘just to update his 201 files‘ in compliance with the
Memorandum Circular dated April 29, 1975 of the CHief
Justice of the Supreme Court.  There is
no doubt that the Honorable Chief Justice has the authority to issue this
Memorandum Circular and faithful and honest compliance is expected of the
subject officials and personnel.

“There is nothing in respondent’s answer (nor in his written
evidence) which substantiates his statements in his information sheets (Exhs. “B” and “C” to “C-5”)
that he is a graduate of Associate in Arts (Pre-Law) of the University of the
East, Manila, in 1952 and a
graduate of law of the University of Manila,
Manila, in 1967.  Instead, the respondent asserts that these
information sheets were obtained by the complainant in violation of
respondent’s right to be secured against unreasonable searches and seizures.  This allegation, however, finds no support
from the records and the evidence.

“In brief, the respondent has made untruthful statements in
his information sheets (Exhs. “B”,
“C”, “C-1” to “C-5”).  There is misrepresentation as to his educational
attainment which constitutes an act of dishonesty and for this he cannot escape
disciplinary action in this administrative proceedings.  Considering the length of service he has
rendered in the judiciary since 1955,
it is recommended that the respondent be made to pay a fine equivalent to his
three (3) months salary as Clerk, Court of First Instance, Marawi City.” (Emphasis supplied).

Notwithstanding the
numerous documents and affidavits submitted by respondent to convince Us of his
worthiness as a public servant, there is, however, a dismal failure on his part
to contradict the concrete evidence of the charge levelled
against him, specifically, in making untruthful statements and
misrepresentations in his personal data sheets. 
The evaluation of the evidence by the Investigating Judge is amply
supported by documentary proofs.

Respondent’s answer to
the complaint to the effect that the questioned personal data sheets have not
been used by him in seeking promotion or any transaction for his retention and
that these have no purpose but to update his 201 file is an admission of the
fact of misrepresentation.  Petitioner
ought to know that whatever qualifications he labels himself in his information
sheet would be of much influence in the determination of his retention and/or
promotion in the service.  The finding by
the Investigating Judge that the information sheet of the respondent was used
to accompany the recommendation for the promotion of the respondent to the
position of Deputy Clerk of Court, CFI and/or Clerk III in CFI, Branch V
correctly disproved and demolished respondent’s defense that said information
sheet was filed for no specific purpose. 
The fact that respondent had repeated the same act of dishonesty and misrepresentation
as to his schooling in different universities and at different times comprising
the period from 1950 to 1967, showing that he finished Pre-Law, 4th year Law
and 1st year in Customs Administration shows a decided and not merely a routinary purpose to deceive and mislead his superior
officers in the service.  The second and
subsequent act of misrepresentation clearly confirmed his duplicity and deceit
for which reason We hold that, although We agree with the findings of the
Investigating Judge that respondent is guilty of dishonesty as charged, the
recommended penalty of a fine equivalent to three months salary is too
light, amounting to no more than a simple token or fee to quash this betrayal
of the public trust, a serious violation of a constitutional mandate committed
by the respondent.

One of the new and
salient features of the present Constitution is Art. XIII, entitled
Accountability of Public Officers.  This
provision has enshrined the basic principle of good government that a public
office is a public trust.  Section 1 of
said Article is very explicit and clear that public officers and employees
shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency, and shall remain accountable to the people.  It must be noted that it is the highest or the
superlative degree of integrity that is demanded of every officer and employee
in the government under this constitutional provision.  We shall be recreant to Our official duty of
upholding and defending the Constitution were We to ignore or treat lightly the
clear and unrebutted betrayal of the public trust
committed by the respondent in the present case.  The people expects that the dishonest and the
corrupt must be weeded out from the government in order to maintain and
preserve inviolate the respect and confidence of the sovereign people.

WHEREFORE, finding the respondent employee, a clerk in the
Court of First Instance, Branch I, Marawi City and
presently detailed in the Court of First Instance at Iligan
City, guilty of betraying public trust through his acts of dishonesty duly
established and admitted, he is hereby ordered dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges and with prejudice to
reinstatement in any branch or agency of the public service, including government-owned
or controlled corporations.

Let a copy of this decision be entered in respondent’s personal
records.

SO ORDERED.

Castro, C.J., Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, and Fernandez, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Records, p. 11.

^[2]
Records, p. 12.

^[3]
Annex D, Records, p. 13.

^[4]
Annex D-1, Records, p. 14.

^[5]
Answer of respondent, Records, pp.
22-39.