G.R. No. A.M. No. OCA-01-5; August 1, 2002
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, NCR, represented by Nelson L. Acebedo, Dir. IV, Office of the Legal Affairs, complainant, vs. REYNALDO B. STA. ANA, HRMO I, Leave Division, OCA, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Reynaldo B. Sta. Ana, a Human Resource Management Officer I in the Leave Division, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Supreme Court, applied for promotion to HRMO III in 1996. In support of his application, he submitted a Certificate of Eligibility purportedly issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) certifying he passed the Career Service Professional examination on February 18, 1996, with a rating of 83.8%, and a Personal Data Sheet (PDS) containing the same assertion. Verification by the CSC Field Officer in the Supreme Court revealed that respondent’s name was not in the master list of those who passed the said examination. The CSC Office for Legal Affairs (CSC-OLA) filed a formal charge against him for Dishonesty and Falsification of Public Document. Respondent failed to file an Answer or attend scheduled hearings despite notices. An ex-parte hearing confirmed the submission of the spurious certificate and false PDS entry, and a CSC certification attested he was not in the Registry of Eligibles. The CSC-OLA Hearing Officer recommended dismissal. Respondent later filed a Petition to transfer jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, citing the Court’s administrative supervision over court personnel. The case was referred to the OCA. Respondent, in response to the OCA’s directive, admitted the charge and pleaded for leniency, citing over 20 years of service with very satisfactory performance ratings and his family’s dependence on him. The OCA recommended a one-year suspension without pay, considering his admission, remorse, long service, and clean record. However, the Supreme Court took a different view.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Reynaldo B. Sta. Ana should be held administratively liable for Dishonesty and Falsification of Public Documents, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of Dishonesty and Falsification of Public Documents. He knowingly submitted a falsified Certificate of Eligibility and made a false entry in his Personal Data Sheet to support his promotional appointment. His acts constitute dishonesty and falsification, which are grave offenses that violate the high standard of integrity demanded of judiciary personnel. The Court emphasized that every employee of the judiciary must be beyond reproach. While respondent admitted guilt, pleaded for compassion, and had a long record of satisfactory service, the Court held that the gravity of the offenses, which are malevolent acts that undermine public accountability and the integrity of the judiciary, warrants the supreme penalty. The Court rejected the OCA’s recommended suspension. Consequently, respondent Reynaldo B. Sta. Ana is DISMISSED from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency or government-owned or controlled corporation, and with forfeiture of unused leaves and retirement benefits. The decision is immediately executory.