MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, PETITIONER, VS. RODOLFO P. TORRELLA, DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH XVI, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

Merit Systems Protection Board versus Torrella

The Case

This is an administrative disciplinary case that reached the Supreme Court as an original matter, arising from the dismissal of Rodolfo Torrella, a Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board found him guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service, after he claimed a civil service eligibility he never earned and supported his appointment with a document bearing a forged signature. The case matters because it shows how the Court treats a public office obtained through falsification and misrepresentation: the appointment is void from the start, and the occupant is removed at once, without retirement pay or other monetary benefits.

Procedural History

The Merit Systems Protection Board conducted a preliminary investigation and found a prima facie case against Torrella. It filed a formal charge against him, required a sworn answer within five days, and asked whether he wanted a formal investigation or waived that right. He denied the charges, elected a formal investigation, and asked for counsel. After several postponements at his instance, the prosecution presented its evidence ex parte at a hearing of which he and his counsel had personal notice. The Board rendered its decision finding him guilty and dismissing him from the service, and it denied his motion for reconsideration. The Board then notified the Supreme Court, through the Deputy Clerk of Court, of the dismissal. That information reached Executive Judge Bernardo Pardo of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, who recommended to the Court that the dismissal be approved with forfeiture of retirement benefits. The Court deliberated on the records and resolved the matter itself, approving the recommendation and ordering the dismissal effective immediately.

Facts

In connection with his appointment as Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, effective July 1, 1983, Rodolfo Torrella submitted a Personal Data Sheet dated June 30, 1983. In it he represented that he had passed the Career Service, Sub-Professional, examination given on July 21, 1968 in Manila by the Civil Service Commission. In truth, his name does not appear in the list of those who passed that examination.

In support of the same appointment, Torrella also submitted a supposed previous appointment as Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Manila, effective November 11, 1975, purportedly approved by the Civil Service Commission. Upon verification, the records of the Commission did not show that the appointment had ever been acted upon by the Commission. The signature appearing on it, purporting to be that of Mrs. M.L. Mayuga-Leaño, was found to be spurious.

In his defense, Torrella claimed that the false information on his eligibility rested on a certification given to him by his superior in 1974, which he honestly believed because it appeared to be signed by officers of the Commission. He denied any participation in or knowledge of the forgery. The Board found the prosecution's evidence overwhelming and unrebutted, noted that the witness Leano denied approving his appointment and submitted specimen signatures showing the discrepancies, and observed that his repeated failure to appear despite due notice showed he had no evidence for his defense.

Issues

• Whether or not Torrella is guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service for falsifying his civil service eligibility and submitting a spurious appointment.
• Whether or not his appointment as Deputy Sheriff, obtained through forgery and misrepresentation, is valid.
• Whether or not he should be dismissed from the service and forfeit his retirement pay and other monetary benefits.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it rests on the administrative findings of the Merit Systems Protection Board and on the Court's own resolution of the matter. The Board's findings, as adopted by the Court, state the operative conclusion:

There is no doubt that respondent obtained his appointment through falsification of his civil service eligibility. He is guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service. His appointment as deputy sheriff based on forgery and misrepresentation, is null and void.

This passage bears directly on the case because it supplies both the ground for discipline and the characterization of the appointment as void from the beginning.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found Torrella guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service. The Board's evidence was overwhelming and unrebutted: his name was absent from the passing and failing lists for the examination he claimed to have passed, and the appointment he submitted bore a forged signature of the approving official. His claim that he relied in good faith on a certification from his superior deserved scant consideration.

On the second issue, the Court held that his appointment as Deputy Sheriff, based on forgery and misrepresentation, is null and void. The Court explained that ordinarily he should restore the salaries and benefits he received under that void appointment, but it excused restitution because he had actually rendered service and performed the functions of the position. Still, the Court stressed that his occupancy of the office should not be prolonged a moment longer.

On the third issue, the Court approved Judge Pardo's recommendation and dismissed Torrella from the service without retirement pay and other monetary benefits, effective immediately.

Doctrine

An appointment obtained through falsification of civil service eligibility and through a spurious or forged appointment paper is null and void from the beginning. A public officer who obtains his office by dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service may be dismissed, and the dismissal carries forfeiture of retirement pay and other monetary benefits. Although one who has actually rendered service under a void appointment is not ordinarily required to return the salaries already received, he acquires no right to remain in the office, and his occupancy must end at once.

Disposition

The Court dismissed Rodolfo Torrella from the service as Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIV, Manila, without retirement pay and other monetary benefits, effective immediately, and directed that copies of the resolution be furnished to the Court Administrator, the Finance Officer and Cashier of the Court, the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region, and the Presiding Judge of Branch XIV for immediate implementation.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that an appointment based on forgery and misrepresentation is null and void, and its occupant's stay in office should not be prolonged a moment longer. Examiners use this case on the consequences of a void appointment obtained through falsified eligibility, and on the rule that dismissal for dishonesty may carry forfeiture of retirement and monetary benefits.