A.M. No. P-06-2251. January 20, 2009.
Cecilia T. Faelnar, Complainant, vs. Felicidad Dadivas Palabrica, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Cecilia T. Faelnar, former Clerk of Court VI of RTC Branch 11, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Felicidad Dadivas Palabrica, former Court Stenographer III of the same branch, for Dishonesty, Falsification of Public Documents, Violation of Republic Act No. 6713 and Violation of Article XI of the Constitution . The complaint alleged that respondent declared her civil status as “single” in her Personal Data Sheets (PDS) and Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) for CY 2003 and 2004, and in other official documents including her PhilHealth record and loan applications, when in fact she had been married since July 1995. Respondent, in her comment, prayed for dismissal, claiming forum shopping and lack of merit. She argued that indicating “single” on one PDS was an inadvertent mistake due to the tediousness of accomplishing several forms, and that she correctly indicated she was married in other forms. Regarding her SAL, she averred that entering “n/a” for her spouse’s name was immaterial as the form deals with assets and liabilities, and the omission was made in good faith and for practical reasons, as her husband is an Australian citizen living abroad. She also contended the omission caused no injury, had been rectified, and that filing a PDS is foreign to her functions as a stenographer. During the investigation, respondent resigned and moved to Australia. The Executive Judge recommended dismissal, finding the misrepresentation intentional but lacking wrongful intent to injure. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent committed misrepresentation and falsification, negating her claim of inadvertence due to repetition, and recommended a fine of ₱40,000.00.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for dishonesty and falsification of public documents for misrepresenting her civil status as “single” in her PDS, SAL, and other official documents despite being married.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court concurred with the OCA’s findings and adopted its recommendations. The Court rejected respondent’s contention that her misrepresentation was unrelated to her duties and thus not punishable. It held that the accomplishment of the PDS is a requirement under Civil Service Rules connected with government employment, and making untruthful statements therein is intimately connected with such employment. The same rationale applies to the SAL and other official documents required by law. Dishonesty warranting dismissal need not be committed in the course of duty; a dishonest official cannot be tolerated in government service regardless of where the dishonesty is committed. Respondent’s claim of inadvertence was not credible given the repetition of the misrepresentation in several documents. The act constituted falsification of public documents, a species of dishonesty. Considering respondent had resigned, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00) in lieu of dismissal, to be deducted from any benefits she may still be entitled to receive.