A.M. NO. P-05-2076 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I NO. 03-1692-P] - ATTY. ELENITA GC. QUINSAY, COMPLAINANT, VS. JAY C. AVELLANEDA, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, SAN FERNANDO CITY, PAMPANGA. R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly recommended his dismissal from the service. By Resolution [15] of May 5, 2004, this Court resolved to require the parties to manifest whether they are submitting the case on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted. To date, however, no communication from either was received by this Court. Still in another case also filed by complainant against respondent, docketed as Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 03-1696-P , for dishonesty, falsification of daily time record, tardiness, habitual absenteeism, violation of Civil Service Rules and Regulations, gross misconduct and conduct highly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, this Court issued the following Resolution of September 29, 2004 : Considering the Court Administrator's memorandum dated September 1, 2004, on the letter-complaint charging respondent with dishonesty, [etc.], reporting that respondent has no respect to the Court as shown by his deliberate refusal to file comment despite being told several times to do so and that his behavior is not only a gross affront to this Court but likewise proves that indeed he is guilty as charged, the Court Resolved to DECLARE respondent Jay C. Avellaneda, GUILTY as charged and that since he had already been dropped from the rolls in a resolution dated 21 April 2003 in A.M. No. 03-3-165-RTC, he is hereby considered dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reinstatement or reemployment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including government owned or controlled corporation. (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied) It thus remains uncontroverted that respondent forged complainant's signature in his Philhealth application, and that he misrepresented being married to that Veronica Gloria for no such marriage was ever solemnized before a fictitious named judge. Undoubtedly, respondent committed dishonesty and falsification of an official document, classified as grave offenses under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases [16] in the Civil Service. Dishonesty and falsification are malevolent acts that have no place in the Judiciary. Assumption of public office is impressed with paramount public interest that requires the highest standards of ethical conduct. A person aspiring for public office must observe honesty, candor, and faithful compliance with the law. Nothing less is expected. [17] As reflected above, however, before the instant administrative complaint was filed on June 6, 2003, respondent had been officially dropped from the Rolls by Resolution of April 21, 2003, and considered dismissed from the service on account of that by Resolution of September 29, 2004, "with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reinstatement or reemployment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including government owned or controlled corporation."