G.R. No. 162403 ; May 16, 2005
FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA, petitioner, vs. ROMEO DICEN, respondent.

FACTS

Florencio L. Advincula, the Provincial Agriculturist of Samar, submitted a required Personal Data Sheet (PDS) in August 2000. In the PDS, he declared having no pending administrative or criminal cases and no prior administrative conviction. However, at that time, he had a pending criminal case before the Sandiganbayan and an administrative case before the Ombudsman-Visayas. He had also previously been suspended for one month for simple misconduct in 1999. His subordinate, Romeo Dicen, filed a complaint against him for dishonesty and falsification. Advincula defended himself by claiming the omission was an oversight due to a busy schedule and that his personnel officer, Micaela Rosales, prepared the form using old files without his review before he signed it.
During the formal investigation, Rosales testified she prepared the PDS using old records and knew of his prior suspension. Advincula admitted on the witness stand that he signed the PDS without reading it and was aware of his pending cases and prior suspension at the time of signing. The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas found him guilty of misconduct and imposed a six-month suspension without pay. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Florencio L. Advincula is administratively liable for misconduct for submitting an inaccurate Personal Data Sheet.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is liable for misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the duty of a public officer to ensure the truthfulness of official documents he signs. A PDS is a vital official document under civil service rules, and the information required, particularly on pending cases and previous administrative penalties, is personal knowledge uniquely within the employee’s possession. The petitioner’s defense of reliance on a subordinate and lack of time to review is unacceptable. As a head of office, he bears the responsibility to exercise due diligence and prudence. His act of signing without verification, despite his personal knowledge of the contrary facts, constitutes gross negligence amounting to dishonesty, a form of misconduct. The penalty of six-month suspension was appropriate, considering it was his second administrative offense. The Court also upheld the Ombudsman’s authority to directly impose such penalties, which are immediately executory pending appeal under its rules.