ABELARDO V. SEVILLA, PETITIONER, VS. LORMA F. GOCON, RESPONDENT.

Sevilla versus Gocon

The Case

This is the case of Sevilla versus Gocon, decided by the Supreme Court in February 2004. Abelardo Sevilla, a public school principal, was charged administratively by Lorma Gocon, a guidance counselor under his supervision, with falsification of official documents, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The case matters because it draws a precise line between dishonesty, which requires a false statement or a deliberate intent to deceive, and mere culpable omission, which may amount only to conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. It also teaches how the penalty is adjusted when the respondent has already retired from the service.

Procedural History

Gocon filed her complaint with the Civil Service Commission. The Commission, through its Regional Office, formally charged Sevilla and his co-respondent Godofredo Limbo, conducted hearings, and thereafter issued a Resolution finding both guilty of dishonesty and imposing the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties. Sevilla elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by petition for review. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the Commission's Resolutions. Sevilla then came to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals.

Facts

Sevilla was the principal of Quezon National High School in Lucena City. In December 1993, he sent a letter to the regional director of the Department of Budget and Management requesting the reclassification of eight Head Teacher III items to Head Teacher VI. One of those items belonged to Godofredo Limbo of the Practical Arts Department. Because the new secondary curriculum had merged Practical Arts with Home Economics and created a Values Education Department, the request could not be acted upon immediately. Limbo then altered the December 1993 letter himself, crossing out Practical Arts and intercalating Values Education in its place. By virtue of that alteration, Limbo was issued an appointment as Head Teacher VI for Values Education, even though he continued performing the functions of head teacher of Practical Arts. Meanwhile, Gocon, who had been designated chairman of the Values Education Department, continued performing the functions of that position without knowing of Limbo's appointment.

In October 1996, Sevilla requested the upgrading of Gocon's own position, representing that the Values Education Department had no regular head teacher. That request was denied. In May 1997, Gocon discovered Limbo's appointment. When she asked about it, Sevilla explained that Limbo had been temporarily designated so that the head teacher items could be reclassified. Dissatisfied, Gocon filed her complaint with the Civil Service Commission. In a letter to the regional director, Sevilla claimed that he had merely acceded to the suggestion of Leovigildo Arellano of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, but Arellano strongly denied making any such suggestion and stated that he did not even know Sevilla personally. Limbo, for his part, admitted making the alterations but claimed good faith. A criminal case for falsification was filed but was dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction.

The Civil Service Commission found Sevilla and Limbo guilty of dishonesty, inferring Sevilla's knowledge of the alterations from his June 1997 letter. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Sevilla had allowed Limbo to misrepresent himself and had concealed the appointment from Gocon and the faculty. Sevilla then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the acts and omissions of Sevilla amounted to dishonesty.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties was properly imposed on him, considering that he had already reached the compulsory age of retirement during the pendency of the case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, Republic Act Number 6713, provides:

Public officials and employees at all times respect the rights of others, and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.

This is the ethical standard against which Sevilla's omission as a public school principal was measured.

Section 22, paragraph t, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order Number 292 provides that conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service is penalized by suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense. This is the provision under which the Court ultimately penalized Sevilla.

Section 19 of the same Rules provides:

The penalty of transfer, or demotion, or fine may be imposed instead of suspension from one month and one day to one year except in case of fine which shall not exceed six months.

This provision allowed the Court to impose a fine in lieu of suspension, since Sevilla was no longer in the government service.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Sevilla was not guilty of dishonesty. Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing one's examination, registration, appointment, or promotion. The Court found that it was Limbo who made the alterations, and that Sevilla never represented Limbo to anyone as the head teacher of the Values Education Department. Since Limbo continued performing the functions of head teacher of Practical Arts, there was no misrepresentation of him as head of that department. No deliberate intent to mislead, deceive, or defraud could be read from the circumstances.

However, the Court held that these circumstances did not totally absolve Sevilla. The meat of the complaint was the concealment from Gocon and the entire school of Limbo's appointment, while she continued performing the functions of that position. Good faith demanded that Sevilla reveal the appointment to her. As principal, he was bound by a high standard of work ethic under Republic Act Number 6713. His failure to inform Gocon and to promptly remedy the resulting prejudice was characterized as conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, since it affected not only her but all the faculty members of the school.

On the second issue, the Court held that since Sevilla had reached the compulsory age of retirement during the pendency of the case and was no longer in the government service, it was more appropriate to impose on him a fine equivalent to his salary for six months instead of suspension, a penalty allowed under Section 19 of the same Rules. Having found him not guilty of dishonesty, the Court held that further discussion of the penalty of dismissal became moot.

Doctrine

Dishonesty requires an intentional false statement in a material fact, or a deliberate attempt to deceive or defraud. A mere omission, without any false statement and without deliberate intent to mislead, does not amount to dishonesty. However, a public school principal who conceals from a subordinate the appointment of another person to the position whose functions she continues to perform, and who fails to promptly remedy the resulting prejudice, is guilty of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, in violation of the high ethical standard required by Section 4 of Republic Act Number 6713. When the respondent has already retired from the service during the pendency of the case, the penalty of suspension is replaced by a fine equivalent to his salary for six months, as allowed under Section 19 of the Omnibus Rules, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Disposition

The Petition was partly granted and the Decision of the Court of Appeals was modified. Sevilla was found guilty of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service and fined an amount equivalent to his salary for six months, to be deducted from his retirement benefits, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that dishonesty requires a false statement or deliberate intent to deceive, while a culpable omission by a public officer may amount only to conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between dishonesty and gross prejudice to the service, and to test the rule on substituting a fine for suspension when the respondent has already retired.