A.M. No. P-24-203

Ruling

Accordingly, the JIB made the following recommendations: 1) The Complaint against Isaac Pablo P. Danao, Court Interpreter III, Branch 3, Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; and 2) Respondent be found GUILTY of Serious Dishonesty; and be penalized with FORFEITURE of all or part of the benefits as the Supreme Court may determine, and DISQUALIFICATION from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however , that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits. [17] The Issue The issue for the Court's resolution is whether respondent should be held administratively liable for his actions. The Ruling of the Court The Court adopts the findings of the JIB, with modification as to the designation of the offenses committed by respondent. At the outset, the Court reiterates that respondent's precipitate resignation does not , as it should not, render the present administrative case moot or preclude a finding of administrative liability for which he may be held answerable for. [18] On the contrary, respondent's resignation during the pendency of the case, coupled with his refusal to participate in the proceedings, is a clear indicium of his guilt. [19] Dishonesty is defined as "the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows [a] lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray and an intent to violate the truth." [20] Simple Dishonesty, which is classified as a less serious charge under Section 15(g) of Rule 140, as further amended, becomes Serious Dishonesty, a serious charge under Section 14(c) of the same Rule, when it is qualified by any of the following circumstances: The dishonest act causes serious damage and grave prejudice to the government. The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the dishonest act. Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly involves property, accountable forms or money for which he is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption. The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the respondent. The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment. The dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions. The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination, irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to, impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets. Other analogous circumstances. [21] (Italics supplied) It is well-settled that making false entries in DTRs constitutes both serious dishonesty and falsification of official documents, [22] as the act involves the deliberate misrepresentation of facts in official records to deceive and obtain undue benefits. In Judge Dojillo, Jr. v. Ching , [23] the