A.M. No. P-19-4001 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4951-P) - ALMYRA D. YAP, LIBRARIAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. NIDA GONZALES, LEGAL RESEARCHER, BRANCH 56, SAME COURT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly in the Resolution dated March 13, 2023 in A.M. No. P-23-090. [19] The Issue The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether Gonzales should be held administratively liable for her actions . The Ruling of the Court After a careful review, the Court concurs with the findings and conclusions of the OCA but modifies the designation of the offense and the penalty to be imposed upon Gonzales in accordance with Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC. [20] Here, Gonzales already admitted that she did, in fact, prepare and sign the subject affidavit in Yap's name and even had the document notarized before submitting it as a part of her comment on the first Complaint to the OCA. Thus, the OCA is correct in ruling that Gonzales' administrative liability in the case is without question. However, instead of Simple Misconduct as the OCA opined, the Court finds that Gonzales' actions are tantamount to the offenses of Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document which are both classified as serious charges under Section 14 (c) and (g) of Rule 140, as further amended. 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, or intent to violate the truth." [21] Pertinently, the offense is qualified as Serious Dishonesty in cases where the erring government official or personnel employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act that is related to his or her employment, among others. [22] Meanwhile, the Falsification of an Official Document, "as an administrative offense, is knowingly making false statements in official or public documents ." [23] In the case, Gonzalez, by her own admissions, clearly committed the offense of Falsification of an Official Document when she affixed Yap's purported signature on the subject affidavit and then proceeded to have it notarized in order to serve her own personal agenda. [24] Worse, Gonzales then deliberately submitted the falsified affidavit to the OCA as part of her defense in an administrative case filed against her, which is tantamount to Serious Dishonesty. Rule 140, Section 17, as further amended, lists the imposable sanctions for serious charges such as Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document as follows: SECTION 17. Sanctions. (1) If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: (a) Dismissal from service, 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; (b) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than six (6) months but not exceeding one (1) year; or (c) A