CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. BERNABET A.

MAALA, respondent. [G.R. No. 165253. August 18, 2005]

In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is
something internal, we can ascertain a persons intention by relying not on his
own protestations of good faith, which is self-serving, but on evidence of
his conduct and outward acts. [22]

Here, respondent, from her actuations, cannot be considered to have acted

in good faith when she stated in her Personal Data Sheet that she is a licensed
social worker on the basis of the spurious documents furnished her by the
fixer. We carefully noted her acts which are inconsistent with her protestation
of good faith, thus:

G.R. No. 206379 November 19, 2014

CECILIA PAGADUAN, Petitioner,

vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION* and REMA MARTIN SALVADOR, Respondents.

as it was a mere error of judgment on her part. The dispositive portion of the Amended Decision
reads:
It is jurisprudentially settled that in the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public
officers or private persons, it is not necessary 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 faithand the destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
In falsification of public documents, therefore, the controlling consideration is the public character of a
document; and the existence of any prejudice caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to cause
such damage becomes immaterial.