• This administrative case involves a court legal researcher, Nida Gonzales, who admitted to forging a co-worker's signature on an affidavit, having it notarized, and submitting it to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to defend herself in another administrative case. The Supreme Court found her actions constituted Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document, grave offenses that betray the high standard of integrity required of judiciary employees. Citing her lack of integrity and a prior administrative offense, the Court ordered her dismissal from the service.

• The First Complaint: Nida Gonzales, a Legal Researcher, was the subject of an earlier administrative complaint filed with the OCA.
• The Falsified Affidavit: To defend herself, Gonzales asked her co-worker, Librarian Almyra Yap, to execute an affidavit. When Yap went on leave and Gonzales was pressed for time, she took matters into her own hands.
• The Admission: Gonzales admitted that she drafted the affidavit, forged Yap's signature, had it notarized, and submitted it to the OCA, all without Yap's knowledge or consent.
• The Second Complaint: Upon discovering the falsified document, Yap filed the present administrative complaint against Gonzales.

• OCA Recommendation: The OCA found Gonzales guilty of Simple Misconduct and recommended a suspension of one to six months.
• Supreme Court Review: The Court re-docketed the case and, upon review, disagreed with the OCA's classification of the offense.

• What is the proper administrative offense committed by a court employee who knowingly submits a falsified, notarized affidavit in an official proceeding?
• What is the appropriate penalty for such an offense, especially considering a prior administrative infraction?

The Supreme Court found Nida Gonzales GUILTY of Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document and ordered her DISMISSAL from the service.

• Offense Upgraded to Serious Charges: The Court held that Gonzales's actions were not merely Simple Misconduct. The deliberate act of forging a signature, having a public document notarized, and submitting it to a judicial body constitutes Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document, which are serious charges under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
• Penalty of Dismissal: Given the gravity of the offenses and the aggravating circumstance of a prior administrative infraction (for habitual tardiness), the Court imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits (except accrued leave credits).
• Action Against Notary Public: The Court also directed the notary public who notarized the falsified affidavit without the affiant's presence to show cause why she should not be disciplined.

• Serious Dishonesty: This is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth that shows a lack of integrity. It is considered serious when it involves the falsification of official documents related to one's employment.
• Falsification of an Official Document: As an administrative offense, this involves knowingly making false statements in official or public documents. A notarized affidavit is a public document.
• Standard of Conduct for Judiciary Employees: The conduct of all court personnel, from the judge to the lowest employee, mirrors the image of the judiciary. Absolute honesty, integrity, and uprightness are demanded at all times.