Fontilla vs. Alcantara

A government employee who misrepresents his educational attainment in his Personal Data Sheet commits serious dishonesty and falsification of a public document, warranting dismissal from the service. Eligibility to public office must exist at the commencement and for the duration of the occupancy of such office; it is continuing in nature, and an appointment of one deemed ineligible or unqualified gives him no right to hold on and must through due process be discharged at once.

Respondent Jaime S. Alcantara was a Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Midsayap, Cotabato, who had been in the judiciary since 1986, beginning as an aide. Complainant Joselito S. Fontilla was a fellow court employee who had been dropped from the rolls of the judiciary for absence without official leave (AWOL). The case arose from Alcantara's appointment as Clerk of Court in 2005, for which he claimed to be a graduate of Bachelor of Arts, Major in English from Southwestern Agusan Colleges. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the matter to the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), CARAGA Region, to verify the authenticity of Alcantara's school records.

Complainant Joselito S. Fontilla charged respondent Jaime S. Alcantara, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Midsayap, Cotabato, with dishonesty and falsification of public document in connection with his appointment as Clerk of Court. In a May 2, 2006 letter-complaint, Fontilla narrated that he inquired from the Office of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), CARAGA Administrative Region, as to the authenticity and validity of Alcantara's school records. The CHED Assistant Regional Director, Dr. Anastacio P. Martinez, showed him office records revealing that Alcantara was never enrolled and was not one of the graduates of the school, and that the school was never granted a program on Bachelor of Arts, Major in English. On July 7, 2006, the OCA wrote the CHED, CARAGA Region requesting confirmation of the authenticity of Alcantara's transcript of records from Southwestern Agusan Colleges. On August 14, 2006, the CHED, CARAGA Regional Director, Joanna B. Cuenca, replied that their records do not show that Alcantara was granted Special Order (B) (R-X) No. 121-0152, Series of 1997, and he could not have obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree, Major in English on March 28, 1996.

Alcantara denied the charges, recalling his 21 years of service in the judiciary, which began in 1986 as aide. He claimed that he enrolled at Notre Dame of Midsayap College in Cotabato but temporarily stopped studying due to conflict in schedule. In 1990, he re-enrolled at Southwestern Agusan Colleges, which credited the subjects he took from his previous school. He attached a certification and an affidavit from the president of Southwestern Agusan Colleges stating that he graduated from the institution on March 28, 1996, in Bachelor of Arts Major in English, and that due to inadvertence on the part of the school, his name was not included in the Master Lists of graduates submitted to the CHED. Alcantara further claimed that Fontilla filed the complaint with malice and revenge because the latter believed that he had something to do with his administrative case on absence without official leave (AWOL).

Judge Laquindanum conducted an investigation and interviewed various personalities. In her telephone conversation with Claro G. Cortez, President of Southwestern Agusan Colleges, she learned that Alcantara was enrolled from 1990-1996 through a distant learning arrangement, where he was required to submit assignments, projects and term papers, and took examination once a month for all his subjects. Cortez assured that Alcantara finished his course and graduated, but was unable to submit the CHED requirements on time, so his name was probably not included in the list of graduates submitted to the CHED. Cortez mentioned that he was making arrangements with the CHED so that Alcantara would be issued a special order, and in case the CHED would not issue one, he suggested that Alcantara may cross-enroll in other schools to get the special order.

A formal investigation was conducted. Dr. Martinez testified that the CHED compels the school to apply for a special order before graduation so that the titles and degrees of the graduating students would be confirmed. He explained that a graduating student is not considered a graduate unless issued a special order, even if he/she had attended the graduation ceremony. He confirmed that Special Order No. (B) (R-X) 121-0152, Series of 1997 was issued to 25 graduates, of whom Alcantara was not included because his name was not in the enrollment list and promotional report of the school. He also observed an irregularity in Alcantara's TOR, in which the remarks "graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Arts (AB) Major in English" appeared after the words "TOR Closed." Fermantes, Registrar of Notre Dame of Midsayap College, testified that it was impossible for a student who has been enrolled for many semesters to be excluded from the enrollment list, given the internal checking conducted by the registrar's office and the reconciliation of records between the school and the CHED. Tardo, Chief Personnel Specialist of the CSC, Region 12, testified that a certain Jaime D. Alcantara, and not Jaime S. Alcantara, took and passed the civil service examination on July 30, 1989.

For the defense, Alcantara testified that he was the same Jaime D. Alcantara because his middle name was Delos Santos, and that he has been using S as middle initial, but when he took the exam, he was told to write D. He admitted that when he took the exam, he was not yet a college graduate, but his former boss encouraged him to take it because he finished second year college and was a government employee. He recalled his special arrangement at Southwestern Agusan Colleges, reporting every Saturday and Sunday only, with no classes and no teachers in all the subjects he had taken. He finished his AB English course in 1996, but did not attend the graduation and did not secure a TOR because he had outstanding financial obligations in school. He was only issued a TOR and diploma in 2005 upon his request, for his application as Clerk of Court.

Judge Laquindanum issued her Investigation Report dated September 30, 2010, finding that Alcantara did not present a witness from Southwestern Agusan Colleges to corroborate his claim, that the official receipts presented do not represent tuition fee but miscellaneous and other expenses, that his name was not included in the enrollment lists and promotional reports submitted to the CHED from 1991 to 1997, that his name was not among the 25 graduates who were issued a CHED special order, and that his TOR was improperly closed. She concluded that Alcantara is not a college degree holder and that the special order appearing in his TOR was falsified. She found that he misrepresented his educational attainment to gain promotion as Clerk of Court, and that the information that he finished Bachelor of Arts, Major in English must have been written in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS), which was under oath when he applied for the Clerk of Court position.

• Dishonesty and Falsification: Fontilla charged Alcantara with dishonesty and falsification of public document in connection with his appointment as Clerk of Court, alleging that CHED records revealed that Alcantara was never enrolled and was not one of the graduates of Southwestern Agusan Colleges, and that the school was never granted a program on Bachelor of Arts, Major in English.

• Motivation of Complaint: Alcantara claimed that Fontilla filed the complaint with malice and revenge because the latter believed that he had something to do with his administrative case on absence without official leave (AWOL), and that Fontilla was dropped from the rolls of the judiciary and may possibly deal with multiple suits due to non-remittance of monthly collections.

• Denial of Charges: Alcantara denied the charges against him, recalling his 21 years of service in the judiciary, which began in 1986 as aide, and claiming that he enrolled at Notre Dame of Midsayap College and later re-enrolled at Southwestern Agusan Colleges, which credited the subjects he took from his previous school.

• School Certification and Affidavit: Alcantara attached a certification and an affidavit from the president of Southwestern Agusan Colleges stating that he graduated from the institution on March 28, 1996, in Bachelor of Arts Major in English, and that due to inadvertence on the part of the school, his name was not included in the Master Lists of graduates submitted to the CHED.

• Special Arrangement: Alcantara testified that he studied at Southwestern Agusan Colleges under a special distant learning arrangement, reporting every Saturday and Sunday only, with no classes and no teachers, and that he finished his AB English course in 1996 but did not secure a TOR until 2005 upon his request for his application as Clerk of Court.

• Identity in Civil Service Examination: Alcantara claimed that he was the same Jaime D. Alcantara who took the civil service examination on July 30, 1989, because his middle name was Delos Santos, and that he has been using S as middle initial, but when he took the exam, he was told to write D.

• Dishonesty and Falsification: Whether Alcantara is guilty of dishonesty and falsification of a public document.

• Dishonesty and Falsification: Yes. Alcantara was found guilty of serious dishonesty and falsification of a public document. The Court affirmed the OCA's recommendation and upheld Judge Laquindanum's findings and conclusions, which were arrived at after an extensive investigation. Section 50, paragraph A, Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) classifies serious dishonesty as a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service.

• Dishonesty and Falsification: The Court affirmed the OCA's recommendation and upheld Judge Laquindanum's findings and conclusions. Citing De Guzman vs. Delos Santos, the Court held that eligibility to public office must exist at the commencement and for the duration of the occupancy of such office; it is continuing in nature. Qualification for a particular office must be possessed at all times by one seeking it. An appointment of one deemed ineligible or unqualified gives him no right to hold on and must through due process be discharged at once. The Court noted that making a false statement in a Personal Data Sheet required under Civil Service Rules and Regulations for employment in the government amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document which warrant dismissal from the service upon commission of the first offense. The accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet being a requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment in the government, the making of an untruthful statement therein was therefore intimately connected with such employment. Citing Aquino vs. The General Manager of the Government Service Insurance System, the Court ruled that misrepresentation by a government employee as to his educational attainment contained in a sworn application for civil service examination is an act of dishonesty and is expressly made a ground for disciplinary action under the Civil Service Rules. Acts of this kind, which combine both perjury and falsification of an official document, infirm a public officer's integrity and reliability, qualities that are necessarily connected with the discharge of his functions and duties. The Court emphasized 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. An employee who falsifies an official document to gain unwarranted advantage over other more qualified applicants to the same position and secure the sought-after promotion cannot be said to have measured up to the standards required of a public servant. While the Court commiserated with respondent who has been in the judiciary for twenty-six years and who may have been simply motivated by a desire to improve his family's lot, it simply cannot condone the means resorted to which was not justified by its end. Under the laws governing the civil service, dishonesty is classified as a grave offense the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction. For having misrepresented the fact that he was a college graduate when in reality he was not, the Court held respondent liable for dishonesty by misrepresentation and falsification of an official document. As an accessory penalty, his retirement benefits are forfeited due to the falsehood and deceit that have marked his assumption into office. With respect to accrued leave credits, there must be a distinction between credits earned prior to the appointment and those earned after. Following the ruling in Boston Finance and Investment Corp. vs. Gonzalez, the Court applied the 2017 RACCS on the imposition of penalty, noting that offenses under civil service laws and rules committed by court personnel constitute violations of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, for which the offender will be held administratively liable. Considering that the CCCP does not specify the sanctions for those violations, the Court has, in the exercise of its discretion, adopted the penalty provisions under existing civil service rules, including Section 50 thereof. Section 50, paragraph A, Rule 10 of the 2017 RACCS classifies serious dishonesty as a grave offense and is punishable by dismissal from the service.

• Eligibility to Public Office is Continuing — Eligibility to public office must exist at the commencement and for the duration of the occupancy of such office; it is continuing in nature. Qualification for a particular office must be possessed at all times by one seeking it. An appointment of one deemed ineligible or unqualified gives him no right to hold on and must through due process be discharged at once. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Alcantara's ineligibility to assume the position of Clerk of Court, which required a bachelor's degree, retroacts to the date of his appointment.

• Dishonesty by Misrepresentation in the Personal Data Sheet — Making a false statement in a Personal Data Sheet required under Civil Service Rules and Regulations for employment in the government amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document which warrant dismissal from the service upon commission of the first offense. The accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet being a requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment in the government, the making of an untruthful statement therein was intimately connected with such employment. The Court applied this doctrine to Alcantara's misrepresentation of his educational attainment in his PDS when he applied for the Clerk of Court position.

• Misrepresentation of Educational Attainment as Dishonesty — Misrepresentation by a government employee as to his educational attainment contained in a sworn application for civil service examination is an act of dishonesty and is expressly made a ground for disciplinary action under the Civil Service Rules. Acts of this kind, which combine both perjury and falsification of an official document, infirm a public officer's integrity and reliability, qualities that are necessarily connected with the discharge of his functions and duties.

• Application of Civil Service Rules to Court Personnel — Offenses under civil service laws and rules committed by court personnel constitute violations of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, for which the offender will be held administratively liable. Considering that the CCCP does not specify the sanctions for those violations, the Court has, in the exercise of its discretion, adopted the penalty provisions under existing civil service rules, such as the RRACCS, including Section 50 thereof.

• "ELIGIBILITY TO PUBLIC OFFICE x x x must exist at the commencement and for the duration of the occupancy of such office; it is continuing in nature. Qualification for a particular office must be possessed at all times by one seeking it. An appointment of one deemed ineligible or unqualified gives him no right to hold on and must through due process be discharged at once." — This passage from De Guzman vs. Delos Santos, quoted by the Court, establishes the continuing nature of eligibility to public office and forms the doctrinal basis for the Court's ruling that Alcantara's ineligibility retroacts to his appointment.

• "We recently ruled that making a false statement in a Personal Data Sheet required under Civil Service Rules and Regulations for employment in the government amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document which warrant dismissal from the service upon commission of the first offense." — This passage articulates the rule that misrepresentation in the PDS constitutes both dishonesty and falsification of an official document, warranting dismissal upon first offense.

• "We have repeatedly said 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. This Court will not tolerate dishonesty for the judiciary expects the best from all its employees who must be paradigms in the administration of justice." — This passage underscores the high standards expected of judiciary employees and the Court's intolerance for dishonesty in the public service.

• "Public office is a public trust. A public officer or employee does not merely have an obligation to obey and respect the law; it is his sworn duty to do so. Assumption of public office is impressed with the paramount public interest that requires the highest standards of ethical conduct." — This passage articulates the principle that public office is a public trust, requiring the highest standards of ethical conduct from those who aspire to public office.

• De Guzman vs. Delos Santos, 442 Phil. 428 (2002) — Controlling precedent cited by the Court for the doctrines that eligibility to public office is continuing in nature, that making a false statement in a PDS amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document warranting dismissal, and that misrepresentation of educational attainment constitutes dishonesty. The Court also followed its ruling on the distinction between leave credits earned prior to and after the appointment to an ineligible position.

• Aquino vs. The General Manager of the Government Service Insurance System — Cited for the ruling that misrepresentation by a government employee as to his educational attainment contained in a sworn application for civil service examination is an act of dishonesty and is expressly made a ground for disciplinary action under the Civil Service Rules.

• Boston Finance and Investment Corp. vs. Gonzalez, A.M. No. RTJ-18-2520, October 9, 2018 — Cited as the basis for applying the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) on the imposition of penalty, holding that offenses under civil service laws and rules committed by court personnel constitute violations of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, and that the Court has adopted the penalty provisions under existing civil service rules.

• Section 23, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Cited by Judge Laquindanum in her Investigation Report, providing that dishonesty and falsification of a public document are grave offenses penalized by dismissal.

• Section 9, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Cited by Judge Laquindanum, providing that dismissal carries with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification for re-employment in the government.

• Section 50, paragraph A, Rule 10, 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) — Applied by the Court in imposing the penalty, classifying serious dishonesty as a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service.

Peralta, C.J., Leonen, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, and Inting, JJ., concurred. Perlas-Bernabe, J., was on official business. Gesmundo, J., was on official business. Carandang, J., was on official business. Zalameda, J., was on official leave.