Office of the Court Administrator v. Torrella
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Rodolfo Torrella, Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XVI, Manila, submitted a Personal Data Sheet (PDS) on June 30, 1983, for his appointment effective July 1, 1983. In his PDS, he claimed to have passed the Career Service (Sub-Professional) examination on July 21, 1968, in Manila. However, verification with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) revealed that his name did not appear in the list of passers for that examination. Torrella also submitted a supposed previous appointment as Deputy Sheriff, Court of First Instance of Manila, effective November 11, 1975, purportedly approved by the CSC. Upon verification, the CSC records did not show any action on this appointment, and the signature of Mrs. M.L. Mayuga-Leaño thereon was found to be spurious. Procedural History: Following a preliminary investigation by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a prima facie case of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service was found against Torrella. A formal charge was filed on March 17, 1986. Torrella denied the charges, attributing the false information in his PDS to a certification from his superior in 1974 and denying knowledge of the forgery on his appointment. He elected a formal investigation. After several postponements at his instance, the prosecution presented its evidence ex parte on February 27, 1989. The MSPB, in Decision No. 557 dated May 9, 1990, found Torrella guilty as charged based on overwhelming unrebutted evidence, noting the absence of his name in CSC records and the forged signature on his prior appointment. He was dismissed from the service. His motion for reconsideration was denied on September 11, 1990. The MSPB notified the Supreme Court of his dismissal. Judge Bernardo P. Pardo of the RTC of Manila recommended approval of the dismissal and forfeiture of retirement benefits. The Supreme Court, after deliberation, approved the recommendation. The Petition: The case involves two administrative matters consolidated before the Supreme Court concerning the conduct of Rodolfo P. Torrella.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Rodolfo Torrella is guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Whether the appointment of Rodolfo Torrella as Deputy Sheriff was valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court approved the recommendation of Judge Bernardo P. Pardo, dismissing Rodolfo Torrella from the service as Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIV, Manila, without retirement pay and other monetary benefits, effective immediately. The Court found no doubt that respondent obtained his appointment through falsification of his civil service eligibility, making him guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service. His appointment based on forgery and misrepresentation was declared null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The Court found overwhelming unrebutted evidence pointing to the guilt of respondent Rodolfo Torrella. The records clearly showed that Torrella submitted a Personal Data Sheet claiming a Career Service (Sub-Professional) eligibility passed on July 21, 1968, which was contradicted by the Civil Service Commission's records, as testified by Ms. Isles, indicating that Torrella's name did not appear in the lists of passers or failures for that examination. Furthermore, the appointment dated November 11, 1975, purportedly approved by the CSC, bore a spurious signature of Mrs. M.L. Mayuga-Leaño, who vehemently denied having approved it and submitted her specimen signature to prove the discrepancy. The MSPB noted that the Commission normally acts through its authorized representatives in attesting appointments, and since the signature was forged, the appointment did not pass through the Commission for approval. The Court also considered Torrella's failure to appear in several scheduled hearings despite due notice as a manifestation that he had no evidence to support his defense or claim of innocence. The totality of the evidence presented constituted substantial evidence to prove his guilt as charged. On the validity of the appointment: The Court held that the appointment of Rodolfo Torrella as Deputy Sheriff was null and void. This was based on the finding that he obtained his appointment through falsification of his civil service eligibility. The misrepresentation in his Personal Data Sheet regarding his supposed passing of the Career Service examination, coupled with the use of a spurious or forged signature on a previous appointment, rendered the entire basis of his appointment fraudulent. An appointment procured through forgery and misrepresentation is inherently invalid and cannot confer any legal right or title to the position. Therefore, his occupancy of the office, though he had rendered service, could not be prolonged.
Main Doctrine
A public servant appointed through falsification of civil service eligibility is guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, rendering the appointment null and void.