GR 153894; (February, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153894 ; February 16, 2005
Alex A. Biteng, petitioner, vs. Department of Interior and Local Government (Cordillera Administrative Region), Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Alex A. Biteng was appointed as Municipal Government Operations Officer in 1989 and later as Local Government Operations Officer V in 1990 within the DILG-CAR. His sister, Evangeline B. Trinidad, was the Chief of the Administrative Services Division and the recommending officer for his 1990 appointment. In his Personal Data Sheet submitted for the 1990 appointment, Biteng answered “No” to a question asking if he was related within the third degree to the recommending or appointing authority.
A subsequent audit by the Civil Service Commission, initiated by an anonymous complaint, found his appointment to be nepotistic. The CSC formally charged Biteng with Dishonesty and Falsification of a public document for his false answer on the Personal Data Sheet. Biteng defended himself by claiming he never solicited his sister’s assistance and was surprised to see her as the recommending officer, arguing she merely performed a ministerial act of forwarding complete papers.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Alex A. Biteng is guilty of Dishonesty and Falsification for falsely answering “No” in his Personal Data Sheet regarding his relationship to the recommending authority.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Biteng’s act constituted Dishonesty and Falsification of a public document. His defense that he did not solicit his sister’s recommendation and that her role was merely ministerial was unavailing.
The legal logic is clear: the prohibition on nepotism under the Administrative Code is absolute and requires no malicious intent. The law is violated once an appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the third degree of the recommending or appointing authority. By falsely stating he was not related to the recommending authority, Biteng concealed a material fact that would have immediately disqualified him from consideration. This deliberate concealment to secure a benefit constitutes dishonesty. The Personal Data Sheet is a public document required by law, and making an untruthful statement therein with legal relevance amounts to falsification. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust, and the paramount consideration in administrative cases is the preservation of the public’s faith in government, not the personal circumstances of the employee.