CSC vs. Rodriguez

A government employee who knowingly uses a spurious PRC Identification Card and repeatedly falsely declares in Personal Data Sheets that she passed a licensure examination she actually failed is guilty of serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and her claim of good faith cannot prevail where she was aware that her name was absent from the published list of passers and took no steps to verify the authenticity of the documents she used.

Respondent Marilou T. Rodriguez took the Nursing Licensure Examination (NLE) in Manila in June 1988. The governing law at the time was Republic Act No. 877 (the Philippine Nursing Law), as amended by Republic Act No. 4704, which prescribed the examination ratings, the requirement of a valid certificate of registration for the practice of nursing, and the penal sanctions for practicing without such certificate. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) exercises jurisdiction over administrative discipline of government employees, and the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) is an official CSC document required of all government personnel, filled out under oath, serving as the repository of information on an employee's personal background, qualifications, and eligibility.

On June 7 and 8, 1988, respondent Marilou T. Rodriguez took the Nursing Licensure Examination (NLE) in Manila. She thereafter returned to her hometown in Mati, Davao Oriental to care for her ailing father. Sometime in October 1988, the results of the 1988 NLE were released and published in a national newspaper of general circulation. Respondent's name was not on the list of successful examinees.

Notwithstanding her failure, respondent applied for and was accepted as staff nurse at the Davao Oriental Provincial Hospital sometime in 1989. For this purpose, she submitted to the hospital and the CSC her supposed passing rate of 79.6% in the 1988 NLE and a "PRC Identification Card." She was given permanent appointment status and later promoted as Nurse II. In 2001, she applied for promotion, for which the hospital required her to submit an updated copy of her license as a registered nurse. She never submitted one. In her applications and appointments from April 1, 1989 to July 17, 2000, respondent consistently declared in her Personal Data Sheets that she took and passed the 1988 NLE with a rating of 79.6% and that she possessed a valid PRC Identification Card. On July 31, 2002, respondent resigned from the hospital.

Thereafter, she worked abroad as a staff nurse in Qatar from 2008 to 2009, in Abu Dhabi from 2010 to 2011, and as a psychosocial nurse at the International Committee on the Red Cross from 2012 to 2013. In November 2009, she took the NLE again and this time passed. In 2013, she returned to the Philippines and was appointed as nurse at the Office of City Health Officer, Mati, Davao Oriental.

On December 16, 2014, respondent received a Show Cause Order from the CSC Regional Office No. XI requiring her to explain why no administrative case should be filed against her in connection with her Personal Data Sheets dated March 9, 1989, April 19, 1989, April 25, 1991, September 3, 1992, September 16, 1994, and April 24, 2000, where she invariably stated that she passed the 1988 NLE with a rating of 79.6% and that she was a registered nurse with professional license no. 0158713. Per verification with PRC-Davao City, Regional Director Josephine C. Villegas-Liamzon certified that the PRC Identification Card with license no. 0158713 actually belonged to a certain "Ella S. Estopo." Respondent did not comply with the show cause order. On April 24, 2015, the CSC Regional Office No. XI formally charged her with serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and falsification of official documents.

In her answer, respondent admitted that her previous PRC Identification Card was fake but invoked good faith. She named one "Evelyn Sapon" as the person who made her believe that she was on a "deferred status" list insofar as the 1988 NLE was concerned. Sapon allegedly told her that she only needed to submit "lacking documents" and pay ₱2,000.00 as processing fee. Respondent claimed she trusted that the PRC Identification Card given to her by Sapon was authentic, and that it was only in 2002 when she discovered it was fake, prompting her immediate resignation. She maintained she had no intention to falsify her Personal Data Sheets and honestly believed she had passed the 1988 NLE.

• Lack of Good Faith: The CSC asserted that respondent's invocation of good faith utterly lacks merit, as aside from her bare allegations, no evidence was adduced to show that her fake PRC Identification Card was wholly authored by a certain Evelyn Sapon.
• Violation of Nursing Law: The CSC argued that respondent's act of misrepresenting herself to have passed the 1988 NLE in all her Personal Data Sheets violates Republic Act No. 877 as amended by Republic Act No. 4704 (the Philippine Nursing Law), negating her claim of good faith.
• Prior Acts Affect Fitness for Public Office: The CSC maintained that it is not required that respondent's acts of dishonesty and misconduct be done in the course of her current duty as Nurse II at the Office of City Health Officer, Mati, Davao Oriental, as her previous acts of dishonesty and misconduct affect her right to continue in public office.

• Mootness: Respondent argued that the charges against her should have been dismissed on the ground of mootness, since prior to the filing of the complaint she had already resigned fifteen years earlier from the position to which she was appointed using her spurious documents.
• Good Faith: Respondent claimed she acted in good faith when she filled out her Personal Data Sheets for the years 1989 to 2000, and that upon learning that her nursing license was fake, she immediately resigned from the Davao Oriental Provincial Hospital. She reiterated that it was only after she passed the 2009 NLE that she rejoined government service in 2013.

• Good Faith: Whether respondent acted in good faith when she submitted and used spurious documents — a fake NLE rating and PRC Identification Card — and falsely declared in six Personal Data Sheets that she was a registered nurse.
• Serious Dishonesty: Whether respondent's falsification of her Personal Data Sheets constitutes serious dishonesty.
• Grave Misconduct: Whether respondent's practice of nursing without a valid certificate of registration under RA 877, as amended, constitutes grave misconduct.
• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: Whether respondent is liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Mootness by Resignation: Whether the administrative charges were mooted by respondent's resignation from the provincial hospital in 2002.

• Good Faith: No. Respondent's claim of good faith fails because she was aware her name was absent from the published list of 1988 NLE passers, the law provides no "deferred status" mechanism, she never verified the authenticity of the PRC Identification Card, and her story about "Evelyn Sapon" is uncorroborated fiction.
• Serious Dishonesty: Yes. Respondent is guilty of serious dishonesty, having employed fraud and falsification of official documents in declaring under oath in six Personal Data Sheets from 1989 to 2000 that she passed the 1988 NLE and was a registered nurse.
• Grave Misconduct: Yes. Respondent practiced nursing from 1989 to 2002 without a valid certificate of registration as required under Section 16 of RA 877, as amended, constituting grave misconduct.
• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: Yes. Respondent's misrepresentation, use of a fake PRC Identification Card, lack of a valid certificate of registration, and falsification of six Personal Data Sheets tarnished the image and integrity of public service.
• Mootness by Resignation: No. The administrative charges were not mooted by respondent's resignation, as dishonesty need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty and affects the employee's moral fitness to continue in public service.

• Good Faith: Good faith denotes honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; it is a question of intention ascertainable not from self-serving protestations but from evidence of conduct and outward acts. Respondent's claim fails on multiple grounds. First, when the 1988 NLE results were published, respondent was fully aware her name was not on the roster of passers. Her tale about a "deferred status" is patently incredible because Section 12 of RA 4704 provides no such mechanism — an examinee who fails must take a second examination, not a "deferred status" conversion. Her story about "Evelyn Sapon" is uncorroborated fiction: she never filed a criminal charge against Sapon, and her conspicuous silence and inaction destroy her claim of good faith. Second, after receiving the PRC Identification Card allegedly from Sapon, respondent never took steps to verify its authenticity; per the PRC Masterlist, the card bearing license no. 0158713 belonged to "Ella S. Estopo." The presumption of good faith does not apply when the employee's documents conflict with official records. Third, between 1989 and 2009, respondent had only spurious documents and no valid certificate of registration, yet she practiced nursing for thirteen years. Finally, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of or who used a forged certificate is presumed to be the forger or the one who caused the forgery.

• Serious Dishonesty: Dishonesty is intentionally making a false statement on any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice deception or fraud in securing examination, appointment, or registration. Under Section 3 of CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, dishonesty is serious when attended by circumstances including employment of fraud or falsification of official documents, commission of the dishonest act several times or on various occasions, and involvement of a civil service examination irregularity or fake eligibility. All three circumstances were present: respondent employed fraud and falsification in declaring under oath in six Personal Data Sheets from 1989 to 2000 that she passed the 1988 NLE and was a registered nurse with a supposed valid PRC Identification Card. The PDS is an official CSC document, and misrepresentation of any information therein impairs a public officer's integrity, reliability, and qualities.

• Grave Misconduct: Grave misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior attended with corruption or clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule. Under Section 16 of RA 877 as amended by RA 4704, no person shall practice nursing without a valid certificate of registration issued by the Board of Examiners for Nurses. Section 30 of the same law imposes penal sanctions for practicing without such certificate. Respondent cannot invoke ignorance of the law governing the nursing profession, as ignorance of the law excuses no one. During her entire stint at the Davao Oriental Provincial Hospital from 1989 to 2002, she practiced nursing without a valid certificate of registration and without a valid PRC nursing license.

• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: This offense refers to acts of a public officer which tarnished the image and integrity of his or her public office. Acts previously treated as conduct prejudicial include making false entries in public documents such as the PDS. Here, respondent misrepresented that she passed the 1988 NLE, possessed a fake PRC Identification Card registered under another person's name, had no valid certificate of registration from 1989 to 2002, and falsified six Personal Data Sheets. These acts tarnished the image and integrity of public service, especially that of registered nurses in government, and put at risk every patient's life entrusted to her care.

• Mootness by Resignation: In Remolona vs. Civil Service Commission, the Court decreed that dishonesty need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty by the person charged. If a government officer or employee is dishonest or guilty of grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with the office, they affect the right to continue in public service. The administrative charges do not hinge on the position respondent used to hold but on her moral fitness to continue working in public service. Her repeated false declarations prejudiced other qualified applicants who would have been hired had it not been for her false declarations. Moreover, when respondent re-entered government service in 2013, she placed herself within the jurisdiction of the CSC for the purpose of determining her fitness to continue in public service.

• Good Faith in Administrative Cases — Good faith denotes honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. It is a question of intention ascertainable not from self-serving protestations but from evidence of conduct and outward acts. A person is in good faith only when he or she has shown an honest intention and is also free from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put him or her on inquiry. Applied here, respondent's claim of good faith failed because she knew her name was not on the published list of passers, the law provides no "deferred status," she never verified the authenticity of her PRC Identification Card, and her story about "Evelyn Sapon" was uncorroborated.

• Presumption of Authorship of Forged Documents — In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of or who used a forged certificate of eligibility is presumed to be the forger or the one who caused the forgery. Applied here, respondent failed to present evidence disproving her participation in falsifying the PRC Identification Card or satisfactorily explaining how she procured it.

• Dishonesty Need Not Be Committed in the Course of Duty — Dishonesty need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty by the person charged. If a government officer or employee is dishonest or guilty of grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with the office, they affect the right to continue in public service. Applied here, respondent's prior acts of dishonesty committed between 1989 and 2000 at the provincial hospital remained the basis for administrative liability even after her resignation and subsequent re-entry into government service in 2013.

• Serious Dishonesty Through Falsification of PDS — Dishonesty is serious when attended by any of the following: (5) employment of fraud or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to employment; (6) commission of the dishonest act several times or on various occasions; (7) involvement of a civil service examination irregularity or fake civil service eligibility; or (8) other analogous circumstances. The Personal Data Sheet is an official CSC document required of all government employees under oath; misrepresentation of any information therein impairs a public officer's integrity, reliability, and qualities.

• Penalty for Multiple Offenses — Under Section 55 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, if a respondent is found guilty of two or more different offenses, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious offense, and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances. The penalty of dismissal carries with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations. Accrued leave credits, however, are not forfeited as a matter of fairness and law.

• "Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction unconscientious. In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal, we can ascertain a person's intention not from his own protestation of good faith, which is self-serving, but from evidence of his conduct and outward acts." — This passage, quoted from Bacsasar vs. Civil Service Commission, articulates the canonical formulation of good faith in administrative cases and supplies the analytical framework for rejecting respondent's defense.

• "Clearly, respondent's story about 'Evelyn Sapon' is nothing but fiction. Who is 'Evelyn Sapon'? How did she step into the picture? What made respondent trust and believe her? Why did respondent not file a criminal charge against her when she discovered that 'Evelyn Sapon' misled her and gave her a fake PRC Identification Card and passing grade of 79.6%? Respondent's conspicuous silence and inaction under the circumstances destroy her claim of good faith." — This passage demonstrates the Court's application of the good faith standard to the evidentiary record, illustrating how uncorroborated allegations and failure to take remedial action are incompatible with a claim of honest intention.

• "Dishonesty need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty by the person charged. The rationale is that if a government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his or her office, they affect his or her right to continue public service." — This passage, drawn from Remolona vs. Civil Service Commission, states the doctrinal basis for sustaining administrative jurisdiction over a former employee who has re-entered government service, negating the defense of mootness by resignation.

• Bacsasar vs. Civil Service Commission, 596 Phil. 858 (2009) — Followed. Supplied the definition and standard for good faith in administrative cases, which the Court applied to reject respondent's defense.
• Civil Service Commission vs. Cayobit, 457 Phil. 452 (2003) — Followed. Held that bare testimony alone without proof that a fake certificate of eligibility was received under a false impression of genuineness deserves scant belief.
• Maniebo vs. Court of Appeals, 642 Phil. 25 (2010) — Followed. Established that the presumption of good faith does not apply when an employee's Certificate of Eligibility conflicts with the CSC's Masterlist of Eligibles.
• Civil Service Commission vs. Maala, 504 Phil. 646 (2005) — Followed. Found an employee guilty of dishonesty through falsification of her Personal Data Sheet for misrepresenting herself as a registered professional, analogous to respondent's case.
• Remolona vs. Civil Service Commission, 414 Phil. 590 (2001) — Followed. Decreed that dishonesty need not be committed in the course of duty and affects the right to continue in public service, defeating respondent's mootness argument.
• Civil Service Commission vs. Perocho, Jr., 555 Phil. 156 (2007) — Followed. Established the presumption that one found in possession of or who used a forged certificate of eligibility is the forger or caused the forgery, absent satisfactory explanation.
• Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon vs. Dionisio, 813 Phil. 474 (2017) — Followed. Enunciated that government employees should not be deprived of accrued leave credits earned prior to dismissal.
• Lamsis vs. Sales, Sr., A.M. No. P-17-3772 (January 10, 2018) — Followed. Decreed that the penalty of dismissal carries with it the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations.

• Section 12, Republic Act No. 4704 (amending Section 22 of RA 877) — Prescribes the examination ratings for the NLE: a candidate must obtain a general rating of 75% with no rating below 60% in any subject. An applicant who fails may take a second examination on the subjects in which he or she obtained below 75%. The provision provides no "deferred status" mechanism, undermining respondent's explanation for how she believed she had passed.
• Section 16, Republic Act No. 877, as amended by RA 4704 — Prohibits the practice of nursing without a valid certificate of registration issued by the Board of Examiners for Nurses. Applied to hold that respondent was engaged in illegal practice of the nursing profession from 1989 to 2002.
• Section 30, Republic Act No. 877, as amended — Imposes penal sanctions on any person who practices nursing without a certificate of registration, or who presents or uses as his or her own the certificate of another, or who gives false or forged evidence to the Board. Cited to underscore the gravity of respondent's unauthorized practice.
• Section 3, CSC Resolution No. 06-0538 — Classifies circumstances rendering dishonesty serious, including employment of fraud or falsification of official documents, commission of the dishonest act several times, and involvement of fake civil service eligibility. Applied to classify respondent's six falsified Personal Data Sheets as serious dishonesty.
• Section 50(A)(1) and (6), Rule 10, 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Classifies serious dishonesty and grave misconduct as grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service.
• Section 50(B)(10), Rule 10, 2017 RACCS — Classifies conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.
• Section 55, Rule 10, 2017 RACCS — Provides that if a respondent is found guilty of two or more different offenses, the penalty corresponding to the most serious offense shall be imposed, with the rest considered as aggravating circumstances.
• Section 52(a), Rule 10, 2017 RACCS — States that the penalty of dismissal carries with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations.
• Article 3, Civil Code of the Philippines — Embodies the principle that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. Invoked to reject respondent's defense based on lack of familiarity with the nursing law.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, J., Reyes, Jr., J., and Lopez, J., concurred.