ChanRobles™Virtual Law

Library™  | chanrobles.com™   
Share

窗体顶端
Search

窗体底端

   
CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT
JURISPRUDENCE

Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine

Supreme Court Jurisprudence >
 EN BANC

[A. M. No. 2003-9-SC - March

25, 2004]

RE: ADMINISTRATIVE CASE

FOR DISHONESTY AND
FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL
DOCUMENT:

BENJAMIN R. KATLY,
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER I, SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT FOR
JUDICIAL APPLICATION
DIVISION, MISO, respondent

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

In a letter1 dated March 17,

2003, Editha M. de la Peña,
Director III, Public Information
Service of the Civil Service
Commission, referred to the
Administrative Services Office of
this Court a text message
received through the
Commissions TEXTCSC Project.
The text message charged
respondent Benjamin R. Katly of
dishonesty and falsification of
official document. Katly is the
Information Technology Officer
I, Systems Development for
Judicial Application Division of
the Management Information
Systems Office (MISO) of this
Court. He has been an employee
of the Court since July 1, 1991.2

The text message referred by

the CSC reads as follows: ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl  lαω lιbrαrÿ

GUD PM. IM ASKING UR HELP

RE. OFFICER BENJAMIN KATLY
OF MIS OFFICE W/C FALSFY HIS
SCHOOL RECORD OF BEING
GRADUATD BUT KICKOUT. HES
CLAIMING GRADUATD FROM
MAPUA INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY BATCH 1994. BUT
WHEN WE CHEK HIS STATUS IS
OUT [sic].

Acting on the referral, the

Administrative Services Office
wrote the Registrar of the Mapua
Institute of Technology and
requested a certification that
respondent had indeed
graduated with a degree in
Bachelor of Science in
Electronics and Communications
Engineering, as he claimed.3

In her reply letter4 of May 8,

2003, Lilian T. Lerios, the
Deputy Registrar of Mapua,
certified that respondent was an
undergraduate at the Mapua
Institute of Technology School of
Electronics and Communications
Engineering from "the
st
1  semester of school year
1986-1987 up to 1st semester
school year 1992-1993 as a
5th year undergraduate
student." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Further investigation also

revealed that sometime in 1994,
respondent applied for a
promotion to the position of
Computer Maintenance
Technologist III, a position that
requires a Bachelors degree
relevant to the job. In the
Personal Data Sheet (PDS) that
respondent accomplished on
December 15, 1994, respondent
made an entry that was
markedly different from his
earlier Personal Data Sheets. In
Item No. 17, on educational
attainment, respondent typed
"B.S. E.C.E." under the heading
"Degree/Units Earned." He
likewise wrote "GRADUATE"
under the heading "Honors
Received."5 In all his previous
Personal Data Sheets,
respondent did not hide the fact
that he had not graduated from
the Mapua Institute of
6
Technology  even when one of
the positions he applied for, that
of Computer Maintenance
Technologist II, required him to
be a holder of a Bachelors
degree.

On December 12, 1994,

respondent was promoted7 to
the position of Computer
Maintenance Technologist III
upon the recommendation of the
Selection and Promotion Board.

On December 6,
1995,8 respondent again applied
for promotion to the position of
Information Technology Officer
I, a higher position that also
required a Bachelors degree
relevant to the job. Just as he
had done in his previous
application, respondent attached
a copy of his resumé9 to his
application letter. In his resumé,
respondent indicated his highest
educational qualification as
"Bachelor of Science in
Electronics and Communications
Engineering (BSECE) " with
inclusive dates of attendance
"1986 to 1993" at the Mapua
Institute of Technology.10 He
likewise reiterated this in his
Personal Data Sheet
accomplished on an illegible
date "5 1996."11 There,
respondent typed "B.S. ECE"
under "Degree/Units Earned" in
Item No. 17, for educational
attainment.12 Through these
representations respondent
secured on March 5, 1996, his
present position as Information
Technology Officer I in the
Systems Development for
Judicial Application Division,
13
MISO.

Because of the apparent

untruthful entries in his Personal
Data Sheets submitted in 1994
and 1996, the Administrative
Services Office directed
respondent to submit a written
comment and to explain why no
disciplinary action should be
taken against him for dishonesty
and falsification of official
14
document.

In his comment,15 respondent
admits he is not a holder of a
baccalaureate degree. He claims
that he made the erroneous
entry in connection with his
application for promotion to his
present position upon the advice
of his former immediate
supervisor, Noel V. Luna, who
then occupied a position
requiring a baccalaureate degree
but who did not possess the
required qualification. To explain
his act, respondent implies that
he had no choice but to follow
Luna because the latter was his
superior.

Respondent also declares that

when he signed his updated
Personal Data Sheet, he did not
have time to review its contents
because he was too busy and
preoccupied with many calls
from the different offices of the
Court. He attributes his
inadvertence to his belief that
the assistant in their office only
copied the details in his previous
Personal Data Sheet without
changing any detail. He likewise
claims that he was not
motivated by any malicious
intention to falsify his records,
as shown by the fact that he had
not misrepresented his
educational attainment in any of
his earlier Personal Data Sheets.

Respondent stresses that he had

diligently performed the duties
and functions of his position,
even claiming to be instrumental
to the success of the
establishment of the Supreme
Courts website and internet
connection as well as several
other MISO projects. These
accomplishments, according to
him, had contributed greatly to
the Judiciary.crvl1

Finally, respondent prays for

kind consideration in his favor,
promising to complete the
qualification requirements of his
present item at the soonest
possible time.

After the hearing held on June

20, 2003, Chief Administrative
Service Officer Eden T.
Candelaria found respondent
liable for dishonesty and
falsification of official document.
In her memorandum dated
January 15, 2004,16 Candelaria
recommended that respondent
be dismissed from the service.

We find the recommendation

well founded.

Respondent admitted that he

knew that the position of
Information Technology Officer I
requires a Bachelors degree in a
relevant course and that he was
not qualified for it.17 Yet, on the
advice and example of his
superior, Noel Luna, respondent
made the false entry in his
Personal Data Sheet. And for
seven years since his
appointment in March 5, 1996,
respondent did nothing to inform
this Court or the Administrative
Services Office of his alleged
oversight in his Personal Data
Sheet. Instead, he continued to
enjoy occupying the position of
Information Technology Officer
I. Under these circumstances,
respondents protestations of
good faith and inadvertence are
simply too incredible to merit
even the slightest credence. To
our mind, respondent acted with
malicious intent to perpetrate a
fraud.

Respondent has misrepresented

his educational attainment to
gain promotion once before. He
started misrepresenting his
educational attainment in
connection with his appointment
as Computer Maintenance
Technologist III, a position that
also required him to be a holder
of a Bachelors degree in a
relevant course. Respondent did
not have the motive to
misrepresent his educational
attainment when he applied for
the position of Computer
Maintenance Technologist II, his
first promotion, because at the
time he applied for this position,
Civil Service Memorandum
Circular No. 23, Series of 1991,
was still in effect. Given his
experience and the number of
seminars he had attended, his
appointment would still have
been approved despite the fact
that he did not have a Bachelors
degree.

At the time respondent was

applying for the position of
Computer Maintenance
Technologist III, however, the
policy on substitution of relevant
training/seminars and
experience to meet deficiencies
in education under Civil Service
Memorandum Circular No. 23,
Series of 1991, was already
disallowed effective January 1,
1993.18 Hence, the only way
respondent could secure his
appointment was by
misrepresenting his educational
attainment. Respondent
admitted that this was precisely
what he did in his Personal Data
Sheet dated December 15,
1994, although he knew that he
was committing falsification of a
public document.19 He repeated
his violation in his Personal Data
Sheet when he applied for his
present position as Information
Technology Officer I.

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.20 This Court will not
tolerate dishonesty for the
Judiciary expects the best from
all its employees.21 An
employee, such as respondent,
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.22

While respondent had

contributed greatly to the
success of several MISO projects
that redounded to the benefit of
the entire Judiciary, the Court
cannot turn a blind eye to what
are clearly transgressions of the
law. Dishonesty and falsification
are malevolent acts that have no
place in the
23
Judiciary.  Assumption of public
office is impressed with the
paramount public interest that
requires the highest standards
of ethical conduct.24 A person
aspiring for public office must
observe honesty, candor, and
faithful compliance with the law.
Nothing less is expected.

For having twice misrepresented

in his Personal Data Sheets that
he was a college graduate when
in reality he was not, we are
constrained to hold respondent
liable for dishonesty by
misrepresentation and
falsification of a public
25
document.

Under Section 2326, Rule XIV of

the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of EO
29227 and other Pertinent Civil
Service Laws, dishonesty and
falsification of public document
are considered grave offenses
for which the penalty of
dismissal is prescribed even at
the first instance. Section 9 of
said Rule likewise provides that
"The penalty of dismissal shall
carry with it cancellation of
eligibility, forfeiture of leave
credits, and retirement benefits,
and the disqualification for re-
employment in the government
service. This penalty is without
prejudice to criminal liability of
the respondent."28

With respect to accrued leave

credits, a distinction must be
made with respect to any
accrued leave credits respondent
earned before December 12,
1994, and the credits
respondent may have earned
from December 12, 1994, to the
present. Respondent was
entitled to leave credits earned
before December 12, 1994, as
he was employed in positions for
which he was qualified. Any
credits earned from December
12, 1994, to the present are
forfeited because his ineligibility
to assume positions requiring a
Bachelors degree retroacts to
December 12, 1994, the date he
was appointed as Computer
Maintenance Technologist III.29

WHEREFORE, respondent
BENJAMIN R. KATLY,
Information Technology Officer
I, Systems Development for
Judicial Application Division,
MISO, 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, except
accrued leave credits earned
before December 12, 1994.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Quisumbing,

Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-
Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-
Martinez, Corona, Carpio-
Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna,
and TINGA, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., on leave.
Vitug, J., on official business,
abroad.
Panganiban, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:
1
 Rollo, p. 36.
2
 Id. at 1.
3
 Id. at 38.
4
 Id. at 39.
5
 Id. at 27.
6
 Id. at 11, 13.
7
 Id. at 26.
8
 Id. at 28.
9
 Id. at 29-33.
10
 Id. at 29.
11
 Id. at 35.
12
 Ibid.
13
 Id. at 34.
14
 Id. at 40-41.
15
 Id. at 44-45.
16
 Id. at 1-9.
17
 Id. at 60.
18
 Civil Service
Memorandum Circular No.
42, Series of 1991.
19
 Rollo, p. 61.
20
Ibay v. Lim, A.M. No. P-
99-1309, 11 September
2000, 340 SCRA 107, 113.
21
Musni v. Morales, A.M.
No. P-99-1340, 23
September 1999, 315 SCRA
85, 91.
22
De Guzman v. Delos
Santos, A.M. No. 2002-8-
SC, 18 December 2002, 394
SCRA 210, 218.
23
CSC v. Sta. Ana, A. M.
No. OCA-01-5, 1 August
2002, 386 SCRA 1, 11.
24
 Supra, note 22 at 219.
25
 See Administrative
Case for Dishonesty and
Falsification of Official
Document against NOEL V.
LUNA, SC Chief Judicial
Staff Officer, SPPE
Division, MISO, A.M. No.
2003-7-SC, 18 December
2003.
26
 Sec. 23.
Administrative offenses
with its (sic)
corresponding penalties
are classified into
grave, less grave, and
light, depending on the
gravity of its (sic)
nature and effects of
said acts on the
government service.

The following
are grave
offenses with
its
corresponding
penalties:

(a)
Dishonesty
(1st Offense,
Dismissal)

.. .

(f)
Falsification
 of official
document
(1st Offense,
Dismissal)

[27 Administrative Code

of 1987.
28
 CSC v. Sta. Ana, A.M.
No. P-03-1696, 30 April
2003, p. 11.
29
 See De Guzman v.
Delos Santos, supra, at
219.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT

JURISPRUDENCE
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

FEATURED DECISIONScralaw

窗体顶端
 

窗体底端

Search for www.chanrobles.com

窗体顶端
Search
 
窗体底端
 QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRoblesPublishing Company|  Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library  ™ | chanrobles.com™

  RED