ROBERT T. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE CHILDREN’S MEDICAL CENTER (PCMC), RESPONDENT.

Mendoza versus Philippine Children's Medical Center

The Case

This is Mendoza versus Philippine Children's Medical Center, a petition for review brought by Robert T. Mendoza against his employer, the Philippine Children's Medical Center, to challenge the Civil Service Commission's affirmance of his dismissal from government service. Mendoza, a midwife, was administratively charged with dishonesty, falsification of official documents, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service after he declared in his General Information Sheet and Personal Data Sheet that he had passed the Nurses Licensure Examination, a claim the Professional Regulation Commission later certified to be false. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the rules every examinee must know on the finality of administrative decisions, the character of Civil Service Commission forms as official documents, the irrelevance of intent to injure in the falsification of public documents, and the authority of a hospital's executive director to dismiss.

Procedural History

The Executive Director of the Philippine Children's Medical Center, after a formal charge and proceedings before the hospital's Investigation Committee, issued an order dismissing Mendoza from the service. Mendoza moved for reconsideration, which the Executive Director denied. Instead of appealing to the Civil Service Commission within the reglementary period, Mendoza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Commission, which the Commission treated as an appeal. The Commission sustained the dismissal in its decision, and denied reconsideration in a resolution. Mendoza then came to the Supreme Court through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, asking that the Commission's decision and resolution be set aside.

Facts

On April 27, 1988, Robert T. Mendoza was appointed as Midwife at the Philippine Children's Medical Center. In the portion of his General Information Sheet and Personal Data Sheet referring to civil service eligibility, he indicated that he had passed the Nurses Licensure Examination in 1987 with a rating of 82.5 percent.

In 2006, the Professional Regulation Commission issued a certification stating that Mendoza does not appear in the registry books of the Board for Nurses, which contain the names of those duly authorized to practice nursing in the Philippines. On the strength of that certification, the hospital's Executive Director charged him with dishonesty, falsification of official document, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Mendoza denied the charges. He claimed he never submitted the General Information Sheet, that it was merely kept on his table, that he was only joking when he filled it up in the late 1980's, and that everyone knew he was a registered midwife and not a registered nurse. He also argued that the forms were not notarized and so were not public documents, that no damage was caused to the government, and that only the Secretary of Health could dismiss him. After preliminary assessment, he was formally charged, and following referral to the hospital's Investigation Committee, the Executive Director approved the panel's recommendation and dismissed him from the service. His motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issues

• Whether or not the Civil Service Commission correctly treated Mendoza's complaint as an appeal from the dismissal order rather than as an original action for illegal dismissal.
• Whether or not Mendoza is guilty of dishonesty and falsification of public documents.
• Whether or not the Executive Director of the Philippine Children's Medical Center had the authority to sign and implement the order dismissing Mendoza.
• Whether or not the failure to prove damage to the government, or the absence of intent to injure, defeats the charges.

Applicable Provisions

Section 52, paragraph A, subparagraph 1, in relation to Section 58, both of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules in Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, provides the penalty for the offenses charged:

Dishonesty and falsification of official document are both grave offenses punishable by dismissal from government service, even for a first offense, without prejudice to criminal or civil liability.

This provision fixes the extreme penalty of dismissal for the very offenses of which Mendoza was found guilty, even on a first offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission properly treated the complaint as an appeal. Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional; failure to perfect it renders the challenged decision final and executory and deprives the appellate tribunal of jurisdiction to alter it. Mendoza received the denial of his motion for reconsideration on June 24, 2009, giving him fifteen days, or until July 9, 2009, to appeal. He did not appeal, so the dismissal became final on July 10, 2009, and his complaint filed on October 5, 2009 was of no legal consequence.

On the second issue, the Court found Mendoza guilty of dishonesty and falsification. He did not refute his authorship of, and what appeared on, the Personal Data Sheet and General Information Sheet, and he offered no evidence for his bare claim that he never submitted the General Information Sheet. The false declaration that he passed the Nurses Licensure Examination constituted dishonesty by misrepresentation and falsification of an official document. The Court rejected the argument that the forms were not public documents because they were not notarized: duly accomplished Civil Service Commission forms are official documents, in the same category as public documents, admissible in evidence without further proof, and their contents are prima facie evidence of the facts stated.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Executive Director had the power to dismiss. Presidential Decree No. 1631, creating the Lungsod ng Kabataan, as amended by Executive Order No. 893, empowered the Executive Director, as Chief Executive Officer, to remove, dismiss, or otherwise discipline employees for cause in accordance with the standard guidelines enacted by the Board. The Court also held that Mendoza was not deprived of due process, since he participated in all stages of the proceeding and availed of the available remedies.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that proof of damage or intent to injure is unnecessary. When official documents are falsified, intent to injure a third person is irrelevant because the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein proclaimed. Finally, the Court held that dismissal was the prescribed penalty, since dishonesty and falsification are grave offenses punishable by dismissal even for a first offense, with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service.

Doctrine

First, perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to perfect it makes the challenged decision final and executory and deprives the appellate tribunal of jurisdiction. Second, duly accomplished Civil Service Commission forms such as the Personal Data Sheet are official documents in the same category as public documents, and a false statement therein amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document. Third, in the falsification of public or official documents, intent to injure a third person is not an essential element, because the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein proclaimed. Fourth, under Section 52, paragraph A, subparagraph 1, of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules in Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty and falsification of official document are grave offenses punishable by dismissal even for a first offense.

Disposition

The petition for review was denied for lack of merit, and the Civil Service Commission's decision and resolution were affirmed; Mendoza lost, and his dismissal from the service stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a false statement in a duly accomplished Personal Data Sheet is dishonesty and falsification of an official document, and intent to injure is immaterial because the thing punished is the violation of the public faith. Examiners use this case on the finality of administrative decisions, on the public character of Civil Service Commission forms, and on the grave offenses punishable by dismissal even for a first offense.