G.R. No. 148445 ; February 16, 2004
ABELARDO V. SEVILLA, petitioner, vs. LORMA F. GOCON, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Abelardo Sevilla, as Principal IV of Quezon National High School, requested the reclassification of eight Head Teacher III positions to Head Teacher VI in 1993. The request contained alterations; specifically, item 7 was changed to designate Godofredo Limbo, the Head Teacher of the Practical Arts Department, as the Head Teacher for the Values Education Department, supervising 28 teachers. Based on this, Limbo was appointed Head Teacher VI for Values Education in 1994. Meanwhile, respondent Lorma Gocon, the designated Chairman of the Values Education Department since 1989, was unaware of this appointment. In 1996, Sevilla requested the upgrading of Gocon’s position to Head Teacher VI, representing that the department had no regular head. Upon discovering Limbo’s 1994 appointment, Gocon filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against Sevilla and Limbo for dishonesty, falsification, and conduct prejudicial to the service.
The CSC found both guilty of dishonesty and ordered their dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC. Sevilla elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing he acted in good faith and that the penalty was too harsh, especially since he had reached compulsory retirement age during the pendency of the case.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Abelardo Sevilla is administratively liable, and if so, for what offense and what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the ruling. It held that Sevilla was not guilty of dishonesty, which requires a deliberate intent to deceive. The evidence showed he initiated the reclassification to upgrade positions for the school’s benefit, and the alteration on the document was made by Limbo. However, the Court found Sevilla liable for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. His failure to verify the accuracy of the request before submission, his subsequent act of recommending Gocon for the same position years later without disclosing Limbo’s existing appointment, and his contradictory explanations demonstrated a serious disregard for ethical standards, creating conflict and demoralization within the faculty.
Regarding the penalty, the Court ruled that dismissal was too severe. Since Sevilla had already reached compulsory retirement age, the imposable penalty of suspension for six months and one day to one year for conduct prejudicial to the service was no longer feasible. Applying the Omnibus Civil Service Rules, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to six months’ salary, to be deducted from his retirement benefits. This penalty is commensurate with his administrative lapse while considering his retirement status.