A.M. No. 941. July 21, 1978. JOSE G. ARELLANO, complainant, vs. JESUS AGUSTIN and EDGAR CORDERO, respondents.
FACTS:

Complainant Jose G. Arellano filed a complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019) against Pedro Nieva, Jr., docketed as a preliminary investigation case before the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, presided by Judge Onofre Villaluz. While this preliminary investigation was pending, though suspended by a Supreme Court restraining order, Nieva applied for compulsory retirement. To secure his retirement benefits, Nieva needed clearances. On February 20, 1975, respondent Edgar Cordero, a deputy sheriff, issued a certification stating Nieva had “no pending criminal information (case)” in that court, signing as “Special Deputy Clerk of Court.” Respondent Jesus Agustin, the Clerk of Court, issued a similar certification on March 4, 1975.
These clearances facilitated the approval of Nieva’s retirement and the release of his benefits totaling P193,428.78 on March 13, 1975. Arellano alleged these certifications were false and constituted dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification, as they enabled Nieva to retire despite a pending investigation, contrary to Section 12 of R.A. 3019, which prohibits the retirement of a public officer pending an investigation or prosecution under the Act.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Jesus Agustin and Edgar Cordero are administratively liable for issuing the subject certifications concerning Pedro Nieva, Jr.’s pending case status.

RULING

Yes, respondents are guilty of grave misconduct. The Supreme Court rejected their defense that the certifications were technically true because only a preliminary investigation, not a formal criminal information, was pending. The legal logic centers on the substantive purpose of Section 12 of R.A. 3019 and the respondents’ duty of candor. The law explicitly bars retirement during any pending “investigation, criminal or administrative” for graft offenses. Respondents, aware of the pending preliminary investigation complaint against Nieva, were duty-bound to fully and accurately disclose this material fact in any clearance to prevent circumvention of the law.
By issuing certifications that omitted the existence of the pending preliminary investigation, they created a false impression that no legal impediment to retirement existed. This omission was misleading and facilitated the release of retirement benefits in violation of a specific statutory prohibition. Agustin, a lawyer, and Cordero, who improperly assumed a title (“Special Deputy Clerk of Court”) he did not officially hold, failed in their responsibility to provide a faithful narration of facts. Their actions constituted grave misconduct warranting dismissal. However, considering their length of service (22 and 10 years, respectively) and lack of prior offenses, the Court mitigated the penalty to a six-month suspension without pay, with a warning.