A.M. No. 2019-18-SC. January 28, 2020
(RE: ALLEGED DISHONESTY AND FALSIFICATION OF CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBILITY OF MR. SAMUEL R. RUNEZ, JR., CASHIER III, CHECKS DISBURSEMENT DIVISION, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICE – OFFI…
PER CURIAM:
Antecedents
Samuel R. Runez, Jr. currently holds the position of Cashier III, Checks
Disbursement Division, Financial Management Office, Office of the Court
Administrator. He has worked with the Court in different capacities for
almost thirty-five (35) years.
Acting on confidential reports that he did not actually pass the Civil
Service Professional Examination, the Office of Administrative Services
(OAS) discovered that his 201 file did not bear a Certificate of his
Civil Service Professional Level Eligibility. What his 201 file
contained was his Letter dated October 4, 1999 which he submitted to the
Court’s Selection and Promotion Board, claiming he had a Civil Service
Professional Level Eligibility in support of his application for the
position of Cashier II.[1] His 201 file also contained several Personal Data Sheets[2]
which he submitted to the Court. In all these Personal Data Sheets, he
declared that he obtained a rating of 80.51% in the May 16, 1999 Civil
Service Professional Examination.
In response to the query of the OAS pertaining to the Civil Service
Professional Level Eligibility of Runez, Jr., the Civil Service
Commission (CSC), under Letter dated October 4, 2019, replied that based
on its Master List of Passing/Failing Examinees in the May 16, 1999
Civil Service Professional Examination Runez, Jr. failed. He obtained a
rating of 36.51%. The OAS, thus, required Runez, Jr. to explain why no
administrative action should be taken against him for falsification of
official document and serious dishonesty.
In his Explanation Letter dated October 24, 2019, Runez, Jr. stated that
he already had a Civil Service Professional Level Eligibility since May
13,
1994. He obtained a passing mark of 80.51% in the May 16, 1999 Civil
Service Professional Examination. The Certificate of Civil
Service
Professional Level Eligibility dated May 31, 1999 that was mailed to him
indicated this rating. He attached photocopies of his Certificate of
Civil Service Professional Level Eligibility to his Explanation Letter
and signified his readiness to present its original copy, if needed. He
maintained that he never had any reason to doubt the authenticity of his
Certificate of Civil Service Professional Level Eligibility. In fact,
when he got appointed as Cashier II on February 15, 2000 and
subsequently promoted to Cashier III on June 12, 2003, his appointment
papers showed “PINAGTIBAY” on its face above the signature of CSC
Director Arturo S.J. Panaligan. If he were not
qualified, the CSC would not have approved his appointments.
The OAS sought another confirmation from the CSC, this time, enclosing
photocopies of Runez, Jr.’s Certificate of Civil Service Professional
Level Eligibility dated May 31, 1999, including its mail envelope.
By Letter dated November 12, 2019, the CSC clarified that, while Runez,
Jr. had a Civil Service Proofreader (Sub-Professional) Eligibility as of
May 13, 1994, he did not pass the May 16, 1999 Civil Service
Professional Examination where he obtained a fail rating of 36.51%. The
records on file with the Integrated Management Office of the CSC Central
Office, as well as
the Regional Register of Eligibles of the CSC Examination Services
Division, invariably yielded these results.
When afforded another opportunity to comment on the CSC Report, Runez,
Jr. said he had nothing more to say, albeit he emphasized that during
his entire employment with the Court, he consistently received a “very
satisfactory rating.” He further asked that the charges against him be
dismissed.
OAS Memorandum dated January 24, 2020
In its Memorandum dated January 24, 2020, the OAS found Runez, Jr.
guilty of falsification of official document and serious dishonesty. It
recommended that he be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice
to re-employment with government.
Ruling
The Court adopts in full the findings and recommendation of the OAS
in its Memorandum dated January 24, 2020.
The CSC consistently confirmed that Runez, Jr. obtained a fail rating of
36.51% in the May 16, 1999 Civil Service Professional Examination as
shown by its Master List of Passing/Failing Examinees in the May 16,
1999
Civil Service Professional Examination. More, Runez, Jr.’s name does not
appear in its Regional Register of Eligibles. These official records
bear the highest probative value. Every entry found therein is presumed
genuine and accurate, unless proven otherwise.[3]
There is no doubt, therefore, that Runez, Jr.’s Certificate of Civil
Service Professional Level Eligibility dated May 31, 1999 is spurious.
His act of using a falsified Certificate of Civil Service Professional
Level Eligibility for the purpose of securing employment with the Court
and later supporting his bid for promotion constitutes falsification of
official document and serious dishonesty.
In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, a person who has in his or
her possession or control a falsified document and who makes use of the
same, is presumed to be the forger or the one who caused its forgery.[4]
Here, Runez, Jr. is presumed to have falsified his Certificate of Civil
Service Professional Level Eligibility dated May 31, 1999. Notably,
Runez, Jr. did not adduce any single piece of evidence to rebut this
presumption. He
is, thus, guilty of falsification of official document.
On the charge of serious dishonesty, we reckon with the basic definition
of dishonesty. It is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or
integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness;
disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[5]
Although dishonesty covers a broad spectrum of conduct, CSC Resolution
No. 06-0538 sets the criteria for determining the severity of dishonest
acts.[6]
According to Section 3 of CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, for dishonesty to
be considered serious, any of the following circumstances must be
present:
officer, the dishonest act directly involves property; accountable forms
or money for which he is directly accountable; and respondent shows
intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption;
falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest
act related to his/her employment;
Service examination irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such
as, but not limited to, impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets.
Here, 5, 6, and 7 characterized Runez, Jr.’s act of dishonesty. He
employed fraud and/or falsification in falsely declaring under oath that
he was a Civil Service Professional Level Eligible. He committed this
act of dishonesty on various occasions. Last, his act of dishonesty
involved the use of a fake Certificate of Civil Service Professional
Level Eligibility. He, therefore, becomes liable for serious dishonesty.
Section 50 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service classifies both falsification of official document and serious
dishonesty as grave offenses that warrant the penalty of dismissal from
the service.
The Court has repeatedly held that the image of a court of justice is
mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of its personnel. In
truth, all court personnel are mandated to adhere to the strictest
standards of honesty,
integrity, morality, and decency. In order to preserve the good name and
integrity of the courts of justice, they must exemplify the highest
sense of honesty and integrity.[7]
Undoubtedly, Runez, Jr. has no place in the Judiciary, where only those
possessing integrity, honesty, competence, and independence of mind are
summoned to answer the clarion’s call of public office.[8]
As a court employee, it was expected of Runez, Jr. to set a good
example for other court employees in the standards of propriety,
honesty, and fairness. It was expected of him to practice a high degree
of work ethic and to abide by the exacting principles of ethical conduct
and decorum.[9] Indubitably,
Runez, Jr. failed to meet these standards, having placed his personal
interest over the interest of the Court. Indeed, his infractions
besmirched the public perception of the image of the Court and cast
serious doubt as to the ability of the Court to effectively exercise its
power of administrative supervision over its employees.[10]
WHEREFORE, Samuel R. Runez, Jr., Cashier III, Checks Disbursement
Division, Financial Management Office, Office of the Court
Administrator, is LIABLE for the administrative offenses of FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENT and SERIOUS DISHONESTY. He is DISMISSED from the service. The Court ORDERS the FORFEITURE of all of his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits. He is PERPETUALLY BANNED
from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including any government owned or controlled corporations.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Civil Service
Commission.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, (C.J.), Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen,
Caguioa, Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting,
Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
A. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ., on official leave.
[1] This position requires
Civil Service Professional Level Eligibility. This requirement also
applies to his current position that he was promoted to on June 12,
2003.
[2] Dated December 9, 2002, April 7, 2005, and April 26, 2017, as they appear in his 201 file.
[3] Civil Service Commission v. Cayobit, 457 Phil. 452, 460-461 (2003).
[4] Pacasum v. People, 603 Phil. 612, 636-637 (2009).
[5] Committee on Security and Safety, Court of Appeals v. Dianco, et al., 760 Phil. 169, 188 (2015).
[6] Id.
[7] Floria v. Sunga, 420 Phil. 637, 650 (2001).
[8] Re: Spurious Certificate of Eligibility of Tessie G. Quires, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of
Court, Quezon City, 523 Phil. 21, 31 (2006).
[9] Supra note 7.
[10] Id.