This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-12-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A perusal of the pleading and documentary evidence that were submitted reveals that the charge of dishonesty was substantially established. In administrative cases, substantial evidence is required to support any findings. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming.[34] As aptly found by the CA: In the case at bar, petitioner was accused and found guilty of dishonesty through her act of submitting a bio-data which "enhanced" her qualifications by attaching the phrase "to present" to her work experience as a consultant to the National Library thereby making it appear that she still held the same position when she applied for the position of Assistant Director in 1996. She, however, insists that she cannot be held liable for such act on account of the findings of the Administrative Adjudication Bureau (AAB) that the said bio-data was unsigned while her "application letter x x x made no mention about the said consultancy service." It bears to note that the subject bio-data is not extant on the records of this case. Instead, the Court noted that the copy attached herein bore the initials and signature of petitioner dated January 7, 1996. On the other hand, the Affidavit of her brother, Bradford O. Orbase, cannot be considered in petitioner's favor for being self-serving in view of their relationship to each other and because it was submitted only on reconsideration before the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel. Moreover, the presentation of the Affidavit of then DECS Undersecretary Nachura cannot sway judgment as it was also submitted only on appeal and is merely corroborative of the matters stated in Bradford's affidavit. Since these evidence were not presented during the AAB proceedings then, the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel cannot be faulted for disregarding the same and relying on the affidavit of then DECS Secretary Gloria which categorically declared that he recommended petitioner for appointment as Assistant Director "because I was made to believe by Ms. Orbase herself that she was then the "present" Consultant in the National Library." "Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making false statement in any material fact, practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion." By indicating in her bio-data that she was an incumbent consultant in support of her application, petitioner prejudiced the other equally qualified applicants to the same position. x x x. | |||||