Sevilla v. Gocon G.R. No. 148445 February 16, 2004 Facts: Facts: Sevilla and Limbo was charged of falsification of official document, dishonesty and conduct prejud prejudici icial al to the best intere interest st of the service. service. Gocon, Gocon, Guidan Guidance ce Counse Counselor lor III, III, was design designate ated d as Chairman of the Values ducation !epartment in "#$#. Limbo was a former %ead &eacher III in the 'ractical 'ractical (rts (rts !epartmen !epartmentt of the )ue*on )ue*on +ational +ational %igh School School in Lucena Lucena City. City. espondent espondent Sevilla Sevilla re-uested for the reclassification of eight $/ items of Secondary %ead &eacher III to Secondary %ead &eacher &eacher VI. (pparently, (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 %ead &eacher acher %ead %ead &eacher acher III/3 III/3 when when in truth truth he was the %ead %ead &eacher acher of the 'ract 'ractic ical al (rts (rts !epartment which which was later merged with the %ome %ome conomics !epartment. Sevilla, in his capacity capacity as 'rincipal IV, 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 &eacher VI for Values ducation. 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 claimed among others, as follows8 9I strongly deny the allegation of :r. Sevilla Sevilla that I suggested to him to 9temporarily designate :r. Limbo5s Limbo5s appointment item as Values item;3 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 & he is administratively liable for that omission. <(SIS8 &he Code of Conduct and thical Standards of 'ublic 4fficials and mployees R%&I': !isho !ishones nesty ty is intent intention ionall ally y ma6ing ma6ing a false false statem statement ent in any materi material al fact, fact, or practi practicin cing g or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his e7amination, registration, appointment or promot promotion ion.. !ishon !ishonest esty y was unders understoo tood d to imply imply a dispos disposit ition ion to lie, lie, cheat, cheat, deceiv deceive, e, or defrau defraud? d? untrustworthiness? untrustworthiness? lac6 of integrity. It was Limbo who had made the alterations in the letter of petitioner, who never represented him to anyone anyone as the head teacher of the Values Values ducation ducation !epartment. !epartment. &he records 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 teacher of the 'ractical 'ractical (rts (rts !epartment. !epartment. %ence, %ence, there was no misrepresenta misrepresentation tion of him as the head teacher of 'ractical (rts
(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 9p/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
