Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ENRIQUE B. INTING v. TANODBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-07-2087 2011-06-07	OCA v. JUDGE MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The accomplishment of the PDS is a requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations for employment in the government. Since truthful completion of PDS is a requirement for employment in the Judiciary, the importance of answering the same with candor need not be gainsaid. [25]
	AM No. RTJ-07-2087 2011-06-07	OCA v. JUDGE MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR DE CASTRO, J.
gainsaid.[25] With respect to Judge Aguilar's supposed omission in her PDS submitted with her judgeship application, we are guided by the ruling in Plopinio v. Zabala-Cariño,[26] wherein we clarified that a person shall be considered formally charged in
	GR No. 170583 2007-09-12	ERNESTO M. FULLERO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Second, in Inting v. Tanodbayan,[47] we ruled that the accomplishment of the PDS being a requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment in the government, the making of an untruthful statement therein was, therefore, intimately connected with such employment. Hence, the filing of a PDS is required in connection with promotion to a higher position and contenders for promotion have the legal obligation to disclose the truth. Otherwise, enhancing their qualifications by means of false statements will prejudice other qualified aspirants to the same position.[48]
	GR No. 133472 2000-12-05	CONSOLACION A. LUMANCAS v. VIRGINIA B. INTAS BELLOSILLO, J.
All the elements of falsification through the making of untruthful statements in a narration of facts are present: (a) That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts; (b) That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; (c) That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and, (d) That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person. In People v. Po Giok To[39] the Court held that "in the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials or by private persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for the reason that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed." Hence, the last requisite need not be present. Also, petitioners themselves have affirmed in their petition that their Personal Data Sheets were not sworn to before any administering officer[40] thereby taking their case away from the confines of perjury. Nonetheless, they argue that they have no legal obligation to disclose the truth in their PDS since these are not official documents. We disagree. In Inting v. Tanodbayan[41] the Court held that "the accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet being a requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment in the government, the making of an untruthful statement therein was, therefore, intimately connected with such employment x x x x"[42] The filing of a Personal Data Sheet is required in connection with the promotion to a higher position and contenders for promotion have the legal obligation to disclose the truth. Otherwise, enhancing their qualifications by means of false statements will prejudice other qualified aspirants to the same position.