Concepcion, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 219542. November 11, 2015.]

JULIO M. CONCEPCION, JR., petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2015, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 219542 (Julio M. Concepcion, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission). — For the Court's resolution is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 07, 2014 in CA-G.R. SP No. 120571, entitled "Julio M. Concepcion, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission," which affirmed the December 11, 2009 Resolution of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), as well as its Resolution dated June 18, 2015 denying reconsideration thereof.

The following factual backdrop gave rise to the instant controversy.

As an offshoot of an arrangement between petitioner Julio M. Concepcion, Jr. (petitioner) and the City Administrator of Puerto Princesa City, Atty. Agustin M. Rocamora (Atty. Rocamora), for the former's review for the bar examinations, petitioner, then a Zoning Officer III of the City Government, was temporarily detailed to the Manila Liaison Office of the City Government, via Office Order No. 449, s. 2006, issued by Mayor Edward S. Hagedorn, effective November 1, 2006, to accommodate his bar examination review.

For the duration of said assignment, petitioner left blank daily time records (DTR) in his official station in Palawan for him to be able to draw his salary. Said DTRs indicated that he reported for work in his official station at Puerto Princesa, and were signed by petitioner and other responsible departments of the City Government.

Due, however, to financial constraints, petitioner was unable to undertake his review in Manila. Instead, he did so in Cagayan De Oro City, for which he did not seek the issuance of a new Office Order.

Almost a year later, or on October 1, 2007, pursuant to Office Order No. 394, s. 2007, he was directed to return to his official station, with which he complied.

Thereafter, or on December 7, 2007, while in the performance of his functions as zoning officer, petitioner denied a request for the issuance of a locational clearance to a certain Dr. Jose Ambalada. Allegedly because of said refusal, Atty. Rocamora filed administrative and criminal cases against him, including Administrative Case No. 01-2008, during the pendency of which, petitioner was preventively suspended without pay. HSCATc

In said Administrative Case, petitioner challenged the findings of the Office of the City Mayor before the CSC. In its Resolution No. 08-1703 dated September 3, 2008, the CSC reduced petitioner's preventive suspension from 90 days to 60 days and directed Mayor Hagedorn to reinstate petitioner and pay his backwages.

Then, on February 4, 2009, Mayor Hagedorn issued Administrative Order No. 012, s. 2009, finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty through falsification of official documents and dismissing him from the service.

Petitioner sought recourse from the CSC. However, the CSC affirmed the findings of Mayor Hagedorn in its Resolution Nos. 091755 and 101476 of December 11, 2009 and July 27, 2010, respectively. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the CSC's ruling before the CA, arguing that the finding that he is guilty of dishonesty for falsification of his DTRs is erroneous on the ground that it was part of his arrangement with Atty. Rocamora.

The CA held that, evidently, his DTRs for the period of his assignment did not reflect his actual attendance since it is indicated therein that he was present at the Palawan City Office, when he was admittedly in Cagayan De Oro preparing for the bar examinations. This, to the CA, was more than substantial evidence that petitioner indeed made false entries in his DTR which warranted his dismissal from the service pursuant to Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and Section 46 A1, Rule X of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. According to the CA, falsification of an official document constitutes dishonesty, which is a grave offense penalized by dismissal from the service even for the first offense. The CA disposed of the case in this wise:

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing discourse, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Hence, Resolutions No. 091755 and 101476 issued by respondent Civil Service Commission dated December 11, 2009 and July 7, 2010, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 2

His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed the instant petition raising the following issues, to wit:

I. Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the finding of the CSC that petitioner is guilty of dishonesty through falsification of a public document; and

II. Whether or not the penalty of dismissal meted is grossly disproportionate to his offense considering that in his 17 years of service, this is his first offense, which, according to him, was done in good faith.

In filing the instant petition, petitioner acknowledged that his DTRs for the duration of his bar review reflected that he was reporting in his official station in Puerto Princesa and presumably performing his official function as Zoning Officer when, admittedly, he was somewhere else preparing for his bar examinations. To justify said false entries, he insists that Atty. Rocamora granted him, and two others, a special accommodation, and it was pursuant to said accommodation that the questioned arrangement regarding the DTR entries was made. Thus, petitioner insists that said falsification was done in good faith, believing it to be legally justified.

We resolve to affirm the CA with modification as to the penalty imposed.

Section 4, Rule XVII (on Government Office Hours) of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides: IDTSEH

Section 4. Falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records will render the guilty officer or employee administratively liable . . . .

It is well-settled that falsification of DTR, an official document, amounts to dishonesty. The evident purpose of requiring government employees to keep a time record is to show their attendance in office to work and to be paid accordingly. Closely adhering to the policy of no work-no pay, a DTR is primarily, if not solely, intended to prevent damage or loss to the government as would result in instances where it pays an employee for no work done. 3

In Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres, this Court held that dishonesty is defined as the "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of integrity." 4 On the other hand, falsification of an official document, as an administrative offense, is knowingly making false statements in official or public documents. Both are grave offenses under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which carry with it the penalty of dismissal on the first offense. 5

Anent the invocation of good faith as a defense, jurisprudence dictates that the existence of malice or criminal intent is not a prerequisite to declare the respondent administratively culpable. 6 What is merely required is a showing that the entries in the DTRs were made, knowing fully well that they were false. The guilt or innocence of the respondent, therefore, cannot be affected by the presence or absence of good faith in the commission of the administrative violation. However, the variance comes in with respect to the penalty to be imposed.

There have been instances when this Court has extended its liberality and taken into account circumstances that evidence the government employee's remorse and good faith, or at least show that the respondent was forced into committing the offense as opposed to doing the prohibited act willingly. 7 In these cases, the Court took into consideration the respondent's length of service, acknowledgment of his or her infraction, and that it was the respondent's first time to commit an offense, among others. 8

Here, We find that the severity of the penalty imposed upon herein petitioner is not commensurate to the violation considering his length of service, his admission of his guilt, and the fact that this is his first offense. Thus, as the Court has previously done in meritorious cases, We deem it fitting to extend the Court's liberality and exercise its equity jurisdiction in favor of petitioner and reduce his penalty to six (6) months suspension without pay.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 07, 2014 in C.A. G.R. SP No. 120571, as well as its Resolution dated June 18, 2015, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION insofar as the penalty of dismissal from the service is concerned.

Petitioner Julio M. Concepcion is found GUILTY of falsification of official documents and dishonesty. However, in view of the mitigating circumstances in his favor, he is hereby meted the penalty of six (6) months SUSPENSION without pay.

SO ORDERED." SICDAa

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 34-41. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Stephen C. Cruz.

2. Rollo, p. 41.

3. Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres, G.R. No. 168309, dated January 29, 2008, 543 SCRA 46, 57-58.

4. Id. at 57.

5. Id.

6. Id. at 60.

7. See Re: Irregularity in the Use of Bundy Clock by Sophia M. Castro and Babylin V. Tayag, Social Welfare Officers II, RTC, Office of the Clerk of Court, Angeles City, A.M. No. P-10-2763, February 10, 2010, 612 SCRA 124.

8. Id.