Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83280:57274&catid=1585&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:25:26+00:00

Document:
SELECTION AND PROMOTION BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. RONALDO D. TACA, CASHIER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MANILA, Respondent.
Personal data sheets should be accomplished with candor and truthfulness as the information these sheets contain will be the basis of any appointment to government service. Any false entry in these documents will be considered dishonesty and shall be punishable by dismissal from service.
This is an administrative complaint for dishonesty and falsification of public documents against Ronaldo D. Taca.
The only issue this court is confronted with is whether the respondent committed dishonesty when he falsified the entries in his PDS.
We adopt the findings of the OCA and agree with its recommendations.
Respondent is charged with falsifying certain entries in his PDS.
Respondent claimed that the PDS copy on file with OAS was not his, which accounted for the discrepancies. An examination, however, of both the handwritten and typewritten PDS dated January 6, 1997 shows that most of the details listed were the same. The signatures on both copies were also similar. Even if we were to disregard the typewritten PDS dated January 6, 1997, his other PDS dated May 6, 1991, January 6, 1997, and October 15, 2001 show that he listed “B.S. Psychology” as his college degree.
His argument that he interpreted degrees earned and units earned to mean the same has no merit. It only takes a simple comprehension of the English language to understand that “degree earned” means the degree which the applicant graduated with. “Units earned” would mean the number of units finished in a specific degree course if the applicant has not yet earned the degree.
Respondent’s intent to deceive is clear from the information he falsified. Civil Service Resolution No. 97-0404 dated January 24, 1997 required a bachelor’s degree and Career Service (Professional) Second Level Eligibility for the position of Cashier I.
At the time he was appointed Cashier I on April 8, 1997, he only possessed the required civil service eligibility, as shown by his civil service certificate28 dated May 13, 1988. He did not have a bachelor’s degree, since he had only completed 101 units in Far Eastern University. Without this bachelor’s degree, he would not be qualified for the position he was appointed to. Despite this, respondent made it appear on his PDS dated May 6, 199129 and January 6, 199730 that he had a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Far Eastern University.
His deception would have gone unnoticed had he not attempted to apply for a promotion. It was as if he knew that once he attained his bachelor’s degree in 2010, he was qualified not only for the positions he was applying for but also the position he was occupying. His subsequent attainment of a college degree, however, does not mitigate his liability. It does not remedy the fact that he knowingly falsified pertinent information in his PDS so he can be appointed to a position he was not qualified for.
The false statements in his PDS prejudiced other more qualified applicants, who would have been hired for that position had it not been for his misrepresentations.33 He is, therefore, liable not only for dishonesty but also for falsification of public documents.
As correctly pointed out by the OCA, a distinction must be made with respect to his credits accrued before April 8, 1997 and his leave credits accrued after April 8, 1997.
Before he was appointed Cashier I on April 8, 1997, he had been previously working as a Cash Clerk II, a position which only required Civil Service (Subprofessional) First Level Eligibility and completion of two years’ studies in college.38 Since he was qualified for the position of Cash Clerk II, he should be allowed to keep the leave credits accrued before his appointment to Casher I.
However, in accordance with this court’s ruling in Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document: Benjamin R. Katly,39 all of respondent’s leave credits accrued after his appointment on April 8, 1997 are forfeited, as his ineligibility retroacts to the date of his appointment.
WHEREFORE, respondent RONALDO D. TACA, Cashier I, Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, is found GUILTY of dishonesty and falsification of official document thereby warranting 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.
16 A.M. No. P-05-2004, (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2086-P). 572 Phil. 6 (2008) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
17 A.M. No. 2003-9-SC, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 236 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
18 A. M. No. P-10-2833, December 14, 2010, 638 SCRA 86 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
20Retired Employee v. Merlyn Manubag, A. M. No. P-10-2833, December 14, 2010, 638 SCRA 86, 91 [Per Curiam, En Banc] citing Bulalat v. Adil, A.M. No. SCC-05-10-P, 562 Phil. 639, 643 (2007) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
21 First Whereas Clause, CSC MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 6, January 28, 1997.
22 Second Whereas Clause, CSC MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 6, January 28, 1997.
27 Id. at 11 and 13.
31 A.M. No. P-10-2809, August 10, 2012, 678 SCRA 247 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
32 Id. at 255-256, citing Retired Employee, MTC, Sibonga, Cebu v. Manubag, A.M. No. P-10-2833, 14 December 2010, 638 SCRA 86, 91; Re: Spurious Certificate of Eligibility of Tessie G. Quires, 523 Phil. 21, 29 (2006); Re: Complaint of the Civil Service Commission, Cordillera Administrative Region, Baguio City against Rita S. Chulyao, Clerk of Court, MCTC-Barlig, Mountain Province, A.M. No. P-07-2292, 28 September 2010, 631 SCRA 413, 423; Donato, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission Regional Office 1, 543 Phil. 731, 744 (2007).
33 See Retired Employee, MTC, Sibonga, Cebu v. Manubag, A.M. No. P-10-2833, 14 December 2010, 638 SCRA 86, 91.
34 A.M. No. 2003-9-SC, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 236 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
35 Id. at 242, citing Ibay v. Lim, 394 Phil. 415, 420-421 (2000); Musni v. Morales, 373 Phil. 703, 710 (1999); De Guzman v. Delos Santos, 442 Phil. 428 (2002).
36Civil Service Commission v. Perocho, Jr., 555 Phil. 156, 168 (2007) [Per Curiam, En Banc], citing Pizarro v. Villegas, 398 Phil. 837, 843 (2000).
37 See Calabines v. Gnilo, 563 Phil. 307 (2007) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
38 See Civil Service Resolution No. 97-0404 dated January 24, 1997.
39 A.M. No. 2003-9-SC, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 236 [Per Curiam, En Banc].

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.