A.M. No. P-99-1348. October 15, 2007.
JUDGE GLORIA B. AGLUGUB, complainant, vs. IMELDA S. PERLEZ, CLERK OF COURT I, respondent.

FACTS

Judge Gloria B. Aglugub of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2, San Pedro, Laguna, filed an administrative complaint against her Clerk of Court I, Imelda S. Perlez, charging her with multiple offenses including infidelity in the custody of records, insubordination, gross inefficiency, grave misconduct, falsification, misrepresentation, dishonesty, and neglect of duty. The specific allegations included her inability to locate court records, refusal to comply with orders causing delays, unauthorized breaking into the judge’s chambers, and, most notably, falsifying her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) by stating she was a college graduate in 1981 when she was only a candidate for graduation in 1997.
In her defense, respondent Perlez offered explanations for the various allegations. Regarding the educational background, she claimed she acted under an honest belief that she had finished her Accounting course, only later discovering she had incomplete grades in three subjects, which she completed in 1997. The case underwent evaluation by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Meanwhile, respondent left the country in 2002 without proper Supreme Court permission, leading to her being dropped from the rolls for being absent without official leave (AWOL).

ISSUE

Whether respondent Imelda S. Perlez is administratively liable for dishonesty based on her misrepresentation in her Personal Data Sheet regarding her educational attainment.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of dishonesty and dismissed her from the service. The legal logic centers on the incontrovertible evidence of falsification. The Court rejected respondent’s defense of good faith, holding that an “incomplete” grade signifies a deficiency, such as failing to take a final exam or submit a required project. A reasonable student would not expect to pass a subject with such a deficiency. Therefore, her claim of an honest belief she had graduated was untenable.
By falsely stating she was a college graduate in her PDS, she gained an unwarranted advantage in her application, committing dishonesty through misrepresentation and falsification of an official document. This act alone warrants dismissal from service even for a first offense, as it violates the stringent standards of integrity, probity, and uprightness demanded of all judiciary personnel. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust requiring the highest ethical standards, including honesty and faithful compliance with the law. Consequently, she was dismissed with forfeiture of retirement benefits and prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.