DISAPPROVED APPOINTMENT OF NORAINA D. LIMGAS AS STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, MARAWI CITY

Limgas versus Civil Service Commission

The Case

This is an administrative case brought against Noraina D. Limgas, a court stenographer of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Marawi City. The case arose from the disapproval by the Civil Service Commission of her appointment as Stenographer III, specifically her change of status from temporary to permanent. The Court examines whether she is guilty of dishonesty and falsification of an official document for submitting a fake Certificate of Eligibility and for making an untruthful statement in her Personal Data Sheet. The case matters because it states, in the clearest terms, the standard of honesty demanded of every person in the judiciary, from the highest official to the lowest clerk.

Procedural History

This case began as an administrative matter within the Supreme Court itself. On the tenth of February 2004, the Supreme Court, through Acting Court Administrator Jose P. Perez, issued a Commission evidencing the appointment of Limgas as Court Stenographer III on a permanent status. After receiving a copy of that Commission, Arturo SJ. Panaligan, Director II of the Civil Service Commission Field Office, requested the Commission's Regional Office Number 10 in Cagayan de Oro City to verify the authenticity of the Career Service Professional Eligibility of Limgas. The Regional Director, Lourdes Clavite-Vidal, replied that no Career Service Professional Examination was conducted in Cagayan de Oro City on the date claimed, and that the records instead showed a failing mark in a Subprofessional Computer Assisted Test. On the first of June 2004, Director Panaligan notified Acting Court Administrator Perez that the name of Limgas did not appear in the roster of eligibles, and her appointment was disapproved. Her services were terminated the same day. The matter was indorsed to the Legal Office of the Office of the Court Administrator, which required Limgas to comment. She filed her Comment, and Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. submitted a report recommending that she be found guilty of dishonesty and dismissed from the service. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court itself as an administrative matter, without passing through the Court of Appeals.

Facts

Limgas was a court stenographer at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Marawi City, holding a temporary appointment. She sought a change of status from temporary to permanent. In support of her application, she attached a Certificate of Eligibility stating that she had passed the Career Service Professional Examination given at the Civil Service Commission Regional Office Number 10 in Cagayan de Oro City on the twenty-eighth of March 2003, with a rating of 84.01 percent. She also stated this fact in Item Number 19 of her Personal Data Sheet.

When the Commission verified her eligibility, Regional Director Lourdes Clavite-Vidal certified that no Career Service Professional Examination was held in Cagayan de Oro City on that date. The records showed that a Subprofessional Computer Assisted Test was given, and that Limgas was one of the examinees, receiving a failing mark of 25.63 percent. The Director concluded that the certificate of rating she submitted was fake. Her appointment was disapproved, and her services were terminated effective the first of June 2004.

In her defense, Limgas claimed she had no personal knowledge whether the certificate was genuine or fake. She maintained that she did not falsify, tamper with, or alter any entries, and that the certificate was the one she received after taking the examination. She admitted taking the Computer Assisted Test on that date but denied receiving the failing rating. She claimed she was a victim of fixers, insiders, and syndicates operating in the regional offices of the Commission, and she asked for the Court's mercy, praying that her appointment be approved even on a temporary status.

Issues

• Whether or not Limgas is guilty of dishonesty for submitting a fake Certificate of Eligibility in support of her application for change of status.
• Whether or not Limgas is guilty of falsification of an official document for making an untruthful statement in her Personal Data Sheet.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal may still be imposed on her despite her having already been dropped from the service.

Applicable Provisions

Section 22 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order Number 292 classifies the offenses, and it provides:

Section 22. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light, based on the gravity of its commission and the gravity of its effects on the government service as provided for in these Rules. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: (a) Dishonesty; x x x (f) Falsification of official document.

This provision is the basis for classifying the acts of Limgas as grave offenses, each punishable by dismissal even for the first offense.

Section 9 of the same Rule XIV fixes the penalty, and it provides:

Section 9. The penalty for each of the offenses is dismissal even for the first offense. The penalty shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification for reemployment in the government service. It may also be imposed without prejudice to criminal or civil liability.

This provision supplies the exact penalties that the Court imposes on Limgas in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found Limgas guilty of dishonesty. Her explanation that she had no personal knowledge of the authenticity of the certificate was unsatisfactory. She admitted that she took a Computer Assisted Test on the date in question, and the Commission certified that this was a Subprofessional Examination. Yet her Personal Data Sheet stated that she was a Career Service Professional Eligible. The Court asked why, if the examination she took was for the subprofessional level, her Personal Data Sheet stated she was a Career Service Professional Eligible. It held that she was fully aware that the certificate and her statement were false, because she knew she never took a Career Service Professional Examination.

On the second issue, the Court found her guilty of falsification. It held that her claim of good faith would not hold water, because good faith requires honesty of intention, free from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put one upon inquiry. Upon receiving the erroneous certificate, she should have wondered why she received it, since she took a Subprofessional Examination and not a Professional Examination. She should have immediately reported the matter to the Regional Office so that any error could be rectified. Instead, she used the certificate to further her career. Her claim that she was a victim of fixers was self-serving and unsupported by competent evidence. The Court observed that no fixer would simply give a person a fake certificate without the latter dealing with the former.

On the third issue, the Court held that the penalty of dismissal could still be imposed even though Limgas had already been dropped from the service effective the first of June 2004. It followed its earlier rulings where it meted out the penalty of dismissal on respondents despite their having been previously dropped from the service.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain that dishonesty and falsification of an official document are grave offenses under Section 22 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order Number 292, and that the penalty for each is dismissal even for the first offense, carrying cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification for reemployment in the government service. Good faith requires honesty of intention, free from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put one upon inquiry. A public office is a public trust, and every officer and employee of the judiciary is expected to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct of the men and women who work thereat. Finally, the penalty of dismissal may still be imposed on a respondent who has already been dropped from the service.

Disposition

The Court found Noraina D. Limgas guilty of dishonesty and falsification of an official document and ordered her dismissed 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.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that dishonesty and falsification are grave offenses punishable by dismissal even for the first offense, and that good faith requires honesty of intention free from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put one upon inquiry. Examiners like to use this case to test the penalties for grave administrative offenses and the principle that the penalty of dismissal may still be imposed despite the respondent's prior dropping from the service.