SELECTION AND PROMOTION BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. RONALDO D. TACA, CASHIER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MANILA RES…

Selection and Promotion Board versus Taca

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for dishonesty and falsification of public documents brought by the Selection and Promotion Board of the Office of the Court Administrator against Ronaldo D. Taca, a Cashier I in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. The charge arose from discrepancies in the Personal Data Sheets he submitted over two decades, particularly his college educational attainment and the date of his civil service examination. The case matters because it fixes the standard of candor required in the Personal Data Sheet, and because it shows how a false entry made to secure an appointment can later be exposed by an application for promotion.

Procedural History

The matter began when the Selection and Promotion Board wrote to the respondent asking him to explain the discrepancies in his Personal Data Sheet on file. After his letter-reply, the Board endorsed the matter to the legal office. The Chief of the Office of the Court Administrator Legal Office then submitted a memorandum finding a prima facie case for dishonesty, and the memorandum was docketed as an administrative complaint. The respondent filed his comment denying the allegations. The Office of the Court Administrator later submitted its report recommending dismissal, and the case was docketed as a regular administrative matter before the Supreme Court, which decided it in July 2014.

Facts

Ronaldo D. Taca had been employed at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila since April 8, 1997, and in 2012 he applied for the positions of Cashier II and III. In September 2012, the Selection and Promotion Board asked him to explain discrepancies in his Personal Data Sheet, specifically in the portion on his college educational attainment and the date of his civil service examination. He replied that the handwritten copy of his Personal Data Sheet was not the same as the typewritten copy on file.

An examination of the records showed that in his Personal Data Sheets from 1991 to 2010, he had listed Bachelor of Science in Psychology as his degree, when in truth he had completed only 101 units at Far Eastern University and earned his bachelor's degree only in 2010. The entries on his civil service examination dates and ratings also varied across the years.

In his defense, he denied the allegations and claimed the discrepancies were the result of hastiness and negligence, and that he understood degrees and units earned to mean the same thing. The Office of the Court Administrator was willing to overlook the discrepancies in the civil service examination dates and scores, but took exception to the educational attainment entries, and further found that the position of Cashier I required a bachelor's degree, which he did not possess when appointed in 1997.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent committed dishonesty when he falsified the entries in his Personal Data Sheet.
• Whether or not the respondent is liable for falsification of public documents.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal, with its accessory penalties, was properly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Civil Service Form Number 212, the Personal Data Sheet, is described in the decision through the recitals of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Number 6, series of 1997, which provides:

The Personal Data Sheet is the official information sheet for all government personnel and is the main supporting document for appointment in government.

This recital establishes that the Personal Data Sheet is an official document whose contents carry legal weight, which is why false entries in it are punishable.

On the penalty, the decision cites Rule 10, Section 46 (A) (1) (6) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which provides:

Dishonesty and falsification are malevolent acts that have no place in the judiciary.

This language, quoted by the Court, underscores that these offenses are punishable by dismissal, and that the penalty of dismissal carries cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in the government service.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent committed dishonesty. It defined dishonesty as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud, and found that his intent to deceive was clear from the information he falsified. His claim that he understood degrees earned and units earned to mean the same thing had no merit, because it only takes a simple comprehension of the English language to understand that degree earned means the degree which the applicant graduated with, while units earned means the number of units finished if the applicant has not yet earned the degree. The Court noted that on his Personal Data Sheet dated October 15, 2001, he wrote Bachelor of Science in Psychology under Degree Earned even if the form specified that the applicant write NONE if not graduated, showing he understood the distinction.

On the second issue, the Court held that he was liable for falsification of public documents. It quoted its ruling in Villordon versus Avila:

Civil service rules mandate the accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet as a requirement for employment in the government. Hence, making false statements in one's Personal Data Sheet is ultimately connected with one's employment in the government. The employee making false statements in his or her Personal Data Sheet becomes liable for falsification.

The Court explained that the false statements prejudiced other more qualified applicants who would have been hired had it not been for his misrepresentations. It stressed that persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence in the public service.

On the third issue, the Court imposed dismissal from service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, including all accrued leave credits earned from April 8, 1997 to the present, and disqualification from re-employment in any government office including government-owned and controlled corporations. It distinguished his leave credits accrued before April 8, 1997, when he was a Cash Clerk II, a position for which he was qualified, and allowed him to keep those, while forfeiting those accrued after his appointment as Cashier I, because his ineligibility retroacted to the date of his appointment.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain that the Personal Data Sheet is an official information sheet and the main supporting document for appointment in government, and that false statements in it constitute dishonesty and falsification of public documents. The making of false entries to gain unwarranted advantage over more qualified applicants is punishable by dismissal, with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in the government service. The subsequent attainment of the missing qualification does not mitigate the liability, because it does not remedy the fact that the employee knowingly falsified pertinent information to secure a position for which he was not qualified.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of dishonesty and falsification of official document and ordered his dismissal from the service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, including all accrued leave credits earned from April 8, 1997 to the present, and disqualification from re-employment in any government office including government-owned and controlled corporations.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the Personal Data Sheet is an official document, and any false entry in it is dishonesty and falsification punishable by dismissal. Examiners like to use this case to test the standard of candor in government appointments and the accessory penalties of dismissal, including the retroactive effect of ineligibility on leave credits.