Sevilla v.

Gocon
G.R. No. 148445
February 16, 2004
Facts: Sevilla and Limbo was charged of falsification of official document, dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Gocon, Guidance Counselor III, was designated as
Chairman of the Values ducation !epartment in "#$#. Limbo was a former %ead &eacher III in the
'ractical (rts !epartment of the )ue*on +ational %igh School in Lucena City. ,espondent Sevilla
re-uested for the reclassification of eight .$/ items of Secondary %ead &eacher III to Secondary %ead
&eacher VI. (pparently, said re-uest contains super impositions0erasures, specifically item 1 2wherein the
'ractical (rts !epartment was replaced to Values !epartment with Limbo as the (LLG! Secondary
%ead &eacher .%ead &eacher III/3 when in truth he was the %ead &eacher of the 'ractical (rts
!epartment which was later merged with the %ome conomics !epartment. Sevilla, in his capacity as
'rincipal IV, re-uested the 4ffice of the ,egional !irector, !CS ,egion IV, for the upgrading of Gocon5s
position of Guidance Counselor III to %ead &eacher VI for Values ducation. !CS denied the re-uest.
Gocon discovered that Limbo was appointed as %ead &eacher VI for Values ducation when he as6ed
about said appointment, Sevilla e7plained to Gocon that Limbo was temporarily designated as %ead
&eacher for Values ducation so that all %ead &eacher items would be reclassified by !CS ,egional
4ffice IV. Gocon filed a complaint and re-uested the intercession of the then !CS Secretary regarding
the matter. !CS claimed among others, as follows8 9I strongly deny the allegation of :r. Sevilla that I
suggested to him to 9temporarily designate :r. Limbo5s appointment item as Values item;3 I do not 6now
personally :r. Sevilla, hence, I have no reason to ma6e such suggestion to him 6nowing that such act is
a clear falsification of public documents. (nd I do not remember having met him.5 Limbo ac6nowledged
that he was the one who made alterations in the re-uest for reclassification. %e stressed, however, that
he initialed all the corrections he made to show that he was in good faith in doing so and that he acted
upon the suggestion of :onina <elen, as staff of Leovigildo (rellano at the !CS :anagement !ivision.
In the CSC case, respondents Sevilla and Limbo were formally charged by the Civil Service Commission
,egional 4ffice +o. IV of falsification of official documents, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service.
ISS!: =4+ the acts or omissions of petitioner Sevilla amounted to dishonesty
"!#$: +o, the omission of petitioner Sevilla was not e-uilvalent to dishonesty <>& he is administratively
liable for that omission. <(SIS8 &he Code of Conduct and thical Standards of 'ublic 4fficials and
mployees
R%&I': !ishonesty is intentionally ma6ing a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or
attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his e7amination, registration, appointment or
promotion. !ishonesty was understood to imply a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud?
untrustworthiness? lac6 of integrity.
It was Limbo who had made the alterations in the letter of petitioner, who never represented him to
anyone as the head teacher of the Values ducation !epartment. &he records show that the item of
Limbo was reclassified from %ead &eacher III .'ractical (rts/ to %ead &eacher VI .Values ducation/,
without petitioner misrepresenting the former as the one performing the functions of head teacher of the
Values ducation !epartment. (lthough Limbo was appointed as %ead &eacher VI .Values ducation/,
after his previous item had been reclassified as such, he continued performing the functions of head
teacher of the 'ractical (rts !epartment. %ence, there was no misrepresentation of him as the head
teacher of 'ractical (rts .<oys/. &he above circumstances, however do not totally absolve petitioner from
liability. &he meat of the anguished Complaint of respondent was the concealment from her and the
entire school of Limbo5s appointment as %ead &eacher VI for Values ducation. 4rdinarily, no one would
assume the heavy duties and responsibilities of a position without receiving, or at least e7pecting to
receive in the future, the corresponding compensation therefor. Good faith demanded that petitioner
should have revealed Limbo5s appointment to respondent. It was improper for him to e7pect her to
continue performing the functions of a values education head teacher, when someone else had already
been appointed to that position and was receiving the corresponding salary. &hus, he is administratively
liable for his omission which, however, did not amount to dishonesty, as he had made no false statement.
4n his part, no deliberate intent to mislead, deceive or defraud can be read from the circumstances of
this case.
(s a public school principal, petitioner is bound by a high standard of wor6 ethic. 2&he Code of Conduct
and thical Standards for 'ublic 4fficials and mployees .,( @1"A/, enunciates inter alia, the State
policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. Section B of
the Code commands that 9.p/ublic officials and employees at all times respect the rights of others, and
refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public
safety and public interest.5
<y his omissions, petitioner failed to live up to such standard. %is failure to inform respondent of Limbo5s
appointment and to promptly remedy the resulting prejudice against her may be characteri*ed as conduct
grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, since such conduct affected not only her but also all
the other faculty members of )+%S.
%S &' &"! S%#%RI!S:
&he conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service is penali*ed under Section CC.t/ of the
4mnibus ,ules Implementing <oo6 V of 7ecutive 4rder +o. C#C and 4ther 'ertinent Civil Service Laws
by suspension. &he suspension is for si7 .@/ months and one ."/ day to one ."/ year for the first offense.
%4=V,, petitioner has already reached the compulsory age of retirement during the pendency of this
case. %e is no longer in the government service. &hus, it would be more appropriate to impose on him a
fine e-uivalent to his salary for si7 .@/ months, instead of a suspension. &his penalty is allowed under
Section "# of the same ,ules.