ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-03-1705 September 2, 2003 - BALDOMERO DE VERA SOLIMAN, JR. v. PRINCESITO D. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 138238 September 2, 2003 - EDUARDO BALITAOSAN v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS

  • G.R. No. 146980 September 2, 2003 - LUZ E. TAGANAS, ET AL. v. MELITON G. EMUSLAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3967 September 3, 2003 - ARTEMIO ENDAYA v. WILFREDO OCA

  • A.C. No. 6084 September 3, 2003 - FELICITAS BERBANO v. WENCESLAO BARCELONA

  • A.M. No. 02-10-614-RTC September 3, 2003 - RE: EDITORIAL OF THE NEGROS CHRONICLE AND OTHER CHARGES OF A CONCERNED CITIZEN AGAINST JUDGE ROGELIO CARAMPATAN

  • A.M. No. OCA-01-6 September 3, 2003 - DOMINADOR V. ASPIRAS v. ESMERALDA ABALOS

  • A.M. No. P-01-1466 September 3, 2003 - EDUARDO F. BAGO v. JOEL FERAREN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1501 September 3, 2003 - ROMEO E. EJERCITO v. ILDEFONSO B. SUERTE

  • G.R. No. 131915 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE LACHICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136274 September 3, 2003 - SUNFLOWER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139400 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO WATIWAT

  • G.R. No. 140652 September 3, 2003 - OLIVERIO LAPERAL v. PABLO V. OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. 144312 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHUA TAN LEE

  • G.R. No. 145737 September 3, 2003 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. EVELYN P. CAYOBIT

  • G.R. No. 149617 September 3, 2003 - MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS v. MARGIE CORPUS MACIAS

  • G.R. No. 141527 September 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDY G. BOCALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1788 September 5, 2003 - JORGE F. ABELLA v. FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1430 September 8, 2003 - ROMEO B. SENSON v. HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 128296 September 8, 2003 - NASIPIT LUMBER CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152957 September 8, 2003 - FAUSTINO ESQUIVEL v. EDUARDO REYES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480 September 10, 2003 - TRINIDAD CABAHUG v. JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY

  • G.R. No. 91486 September 10, 2003 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107271 September 10, 2003 - CITY OF CALOOCAN, ET AL. v. MAURO T. ALLARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125329 September 10, 2003 - ANN BRIGITT LEONARDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140762 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER C. ROXAS

  • G.R. No. 148912 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS

  • G.R. No. 151212 September 10, 2003 - TEN FORTY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. MARINA CRUZ

  • A.M. No. P-02-1562 September 11, 2003 - ROMULO SG. VILLANUEVA v. CHARLIE C. LARCENA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1742 September 11, 2003 - AVELINA MADULA v. RUTH CRUZ SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 136286-89 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN G. DE TAZA

  • G.R. No. 138366 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN CAÑETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138569 September 11, 2003 - CONSOLIDATED BANK and TRUST CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144785 September 11, 2003 - YOLANDA GARCIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 145407 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONITO HEREVESE

  • G.R. No. 151081 September 11, 2003 - TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES v. PAXTON DEV’T. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153126 September 11, 2003 - MONTEREY FOODS CORP., ET AL. v. VICTORINO E. ESERJOSE

  • G.R. No. 153845 September 11, 2003 - EFREN P. SALVAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799 September 12, 2003 - MARIA CRISTINA OLONDRIZ PERTIERRA v. ALBERTO L. LERMA

  • G.R. No. 127206 September 12, 2003 - PERLA PALMA GIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135029 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR CARRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 141600 September 12, 2003 - ROBERTO FULGENCIO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144639 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY GO

  • G.R. Nos. 144972-73 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO JUNAS

  • G.R. No. 133365 September 16, 2003 - PLATINUM TOURS AND TRAVEL, INC. v. JOSE M. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 147814-15 September 16, 2003 - RAUL ZAPATOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 155278 September 16, 2003 - PRUDENCIO J. TANJUAN v. PHIL. POSTAL SAVINGS BANK

  • A.M. No. P-03-1740 September 17, 2003 - FRANKLIN Q. SUSA v. TEOFILA A. PEÑA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656 September 17, 2003 - EDGARDO D. BALSAMO v. PEDRO L. SUAN

  • G.R. No. 141120 September 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ

  • G.R. No. 146125 September 17, 2003 - NOVELTY PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1347 September 18, 2003 - BENJAMIN TUDTUD v. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • A.M. No. P-00-1370 September 18, 2003 - ALEJANDRO PAREDES, ET AL. v. JERRY MARCELINO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1510 September 18, 2003 - MARY ANN PADUGANAN-PEÑARANDA v. GRACE L. SONGCUYA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1691 September 18, 2003 - JOSE S. SAÑEZ v. CARLOS B. RABINA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1703 September 18, 2003 - EDNA FE F. AQUINO v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1724 September 18, 2003 - VICENTE ALVAREZ, Jr. v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1742 September 18, 2003 - SALVADOR L. BERNABE v. WINSTON T. EGUIA

  • G.R. No. 135559 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORENO OCUMEN

  • G.R. No. 135563 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOBBY P. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 144913 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. GERONIMO C. CENIZA

  • G.R. No. 149627 September 18, 2003 - KENNETH O. NADELA v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL..

  • G.R. No. 152351 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMIL MALA

  • G.R. No. 152604 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO S.PEDRIGAL

  • G.R. No. 153571 September 18, 2003 - BENGUET MANAGEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156259 September 18, 2003 - GROGUN, INC. v. NAPOCOR

  • G.R. No. 157957 September 18, 2003 - CHARITO NAVAROSA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142974 September 22, 2003 - SPS. SHEM G. ALFARERO and AURELIA TAGALOG v. SPS. PETRA and SANCHO SEVILLA

  • G.R. No. 152529 September 22, 2003 - SPS. HENDRIK and ALICIA S. BIESTERBOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1450 September 23, 2003 - RAMIRO S. DE JOYA v. AUGUSTUS C. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1509 September 23, 2003 - HELEN GAMBOA-MIJARES v. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1732 September 23, 2003 - ROSENINA O. UY, ET AL. v. LOLITA R. EDILO

  • G.R. No. 123140 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO CORTEZANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135446 September 23, 2003 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BPI

  • G.R. No. 136729 September 23, 2003 - ASTRO ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL. v. PHIL. EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 138716-19 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PILLAS

  • G.R. No. 138725 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO OLIVAR

  • G.R. No. 139360 September 23, 2003 - HLC CONSTRUCTION AND DEV’T. CORP., ET AL. v. EHSHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140982 September 23, 2003 - MARIO GUTIERREZ v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141434 September 23, 2003 - ANTONIO LO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143132 September 23, 2003 - VAN MELLE PHILS. ET AL. v. VICTOR M. ENDAYA

  • G.R. No. 144533 September 23, 2003 - JIMMY L. BARNES v. TERESITA C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146786-88 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES T. DAÑO

  • G.R. No. 149295 September 23, 2003 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENEROSO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. 149370 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALEJO

  • G.R. No. 150905 September 23, 2003 - CITIBANK v. EFREN S. TEODORO

  • G.R. No. 151072 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151931 September 23, 2003 - ANAMER SALAZAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 152823-24 September 23, 2003 - RUFINA CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152998 September 23, 2003 - SIMON Q. AÑONUEVO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156295 September 23, 2003 - MARCELO R. SORIANO v. SPS. RICARDO and ROSALINA GALIT

  • G.R. No. 156983 September 23, 2003 - In the Matter of the Application for the Habeas Corpus of JOSE VICTOR RIGOR y DANAO v. The Superintendent

  • A.M. No. P-00-1418 September 24, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CELESTINA B. CORPUZ

  • G.R. No. 124293 September 24, 2003 - JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130087 September 24, 2003 - DIANA M. BARCELONA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136726 September 24, 2003 - PANFILO V. VILLARUEL v. REYNALDO D. FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148924 September 24, 2003 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153781 September 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 153885 & 156214 September 24, 2003 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. v. WMC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1746 September 26, 2003 - ROGER F. BORJA v. ZORAYDA H. SALCEDO

  • G.R. No. 130330 September 26, 2003 - FERNANDO GO v. MICHAEL TAN and LOLITA TAN

  • G.R. No. 141217 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO DUBAN

  • G.R. No. 144037 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL P. TUDTUD, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5480 September 29, 2003 - LEILANI OCAMPO-INGCOCO, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO G. YRREVERRE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 137370-71 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL OCO

  • G.R. No. 139185 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 148902 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO ANDRADE

  • G.R. No. 149718 September 29, 2003 - MARIO VALEROSO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 152057 September 29, 2003 - PT & T CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5854 September 30, 2003 - NORA E. MIWA v. RENE O. MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 127593 September 30, 2003 - CLARA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136742-43 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO Y. ALFARO

  • G.R. Nos. 140514-15 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNE IGNAS

  • G.R. No. 142751 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO OPELIÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143010 September 30, 2003 - MIGUEL DANOFRATA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 144230 September 30, 2003 - ARTURO G. MACKAY v. ADORACION G. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148332 September 30, 2003 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. MADRIGAL WAN HAI LINES CORP.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 145737   September 3, 2003 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. EVELYN P. CAYOBIT

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 145737. September 3, 2003.]

    CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. EVELYN P. CAYOBIT, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    This case arose from an administrative complaint filed by petitioner Civil Service Commission against respondent Evelyn P. Cayobit for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Since 1982, respondent has been employed with the National Housing Authority (NHA). On March 29, 1990, she was appointed as Livelihood Specialist in its Dagat-dagatan Development Project. The position was co-terminus with the project and did not require any eligibility. Even then, she submitted her original certificate of eligibility showing a rating of 81.20%, the grade she obtained in a civil service examination held on July 30, 1989 in Manila. On June 5, 1990, petitioner approved her appointment, which was given retroactive effect from July 1, 1989.

    Another appointment was extended to respondent in September 1993 as Senior Livelihood Officer. This position required civil service eligibility owing to its permanent status. On September 29, 1993, Carmelita Bernardino, Senior Specialist at petitioner’s field office in NHA, came across her appointment papers, which included her original certificate of eligibility. In the course of processing said papers, Bernardino found out that her eligibility was not entered in the service card on file with the field office. To verify, Bernardino went to petitioner’s National Capital Region office on October 18, 1993. Bernardino discovered that respondent was not in the passing list on file.

    The matter was referred by Bernardino to her superior, Director Imelda Abueng, who verified respondent’s eligibility with petitioner’s central office. She found out that based on the masterlist of eligibles kept at the central office, respondent obtained a failing mark of 40.96%. Respondent’s appointment was disapproved.

    On October 25, 1993, petitioner charged respondent with dishonesty and grave misconduct, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That in support of your appointment as Senior Livelihood Officer, National Housing Authority, Quezon City, you submitted a xerox copy of your alleged Certificate of Eligibility (CS Professional) purporting that you passed the July 30, 1989 Career Service Examination. However, after verification from the masterlist of eligibles, it was found out that you failed the said examination with a rating of 40.96%. 1

    After hearing, respondent was held guilty of the charges against her. In a resolution dated January 5, 1995, petitioner ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    After a careful evaluation of the records, we find substantial evidence which proved the commission by the herein respondent of the offense charged against her.

    WHEREFORE, Evelyn P. Cayobit is found guilty of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. Accordingly, the penalty of dismissal from the service with the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification from taking any civil service examination and disqualification from holding public office are (sic) imposed on her. 2

    Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed with this court a Petition for Certiorari on March 29, 1995. 3 We referred the petition to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition in a Resolution dated April 4, 1995, 4 where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 36978. 5 Pursuant to our ruling in the case Dennis Lazo v. Civil Service Commission, 6 the appellate court ordered petitioner to retrieve and submit the answer sheets of Respondent. Its Management Information Office, however, stated that the answer sheets have already been disposed of in accordance with CSC Resolution No. 87-070 which directs the "destruction or disposal of answer sheets of examinees who passed in the Civil Service examinations . . . after five (5) years from the date of the release of examination." 7

    In its decision dated February 15, 2000, the Court of Appeals granted the petition of the respondent, viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In fine, there was no substantial evidence to prove that petitioner committed the offenses leveled against her.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the impugned CSC Resolution No. 95-0111 is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.

    SO ORDERED. 8

    It likewise denied for lack of merit petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution promulgated on October 12, 2000.

    Hence, the present course of action, where petitioner contends:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was no substantial evidence to prove that respondent committed the offense of dishonesty and grave misconduct.

    That the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that the masterlist of eligibles is not the primary record of civil service eligibles. 9

    We will first decide the second issue as our resolution of whether the masterlist of eligibles is the primary record of civil service eligibles is crucial in determining the innocence or guilt of the Respondent. In this regard, petitioner argues that the masterlist of eligibles must be considered the primary record of eligibility for this is the official record it keeps pursuant to both its constitutional and statutory mandates to conduct and safeguard civil service examinations. We agree.

    Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, provides that petitioner should keep a register of eligibles, where the names of those who pass any particular civil service examination shall be entered, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Sec. 23. Release of Examination Results. — The results of any particular service examination held in a number of places on the same date shall be released simultaneously.

    Sec. 24. Register of Eligibles. — The names of the competitors who pass an examination shall be entered in a register of eligibles arranged in the order of their general ratings and containing such information as the Commission may deem necessary. 10

    The implementing rules of the Code similarly provides, viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Sec. 5. The results of any particular civil service examination held in a number of places on the same date shall be held simultaneously. The names of examinees who obtained the required passing grades in an examination shall be entered in a register of eligibles. 11

    Pursuant to the foregoing provisions, petitioner prepares and keeps the masterlist of eligibles, which is the list of all examinees who passed and failed a given examination. It contains their complete names, the general rating they obtained and other relevant personal information such as their places and dates of birth, and their home addresses. 12

    The masterlist of eligibles is kept by petitioner for records and verification purposes. It is precisely against it that entries in the certificate of eligibility are counter-checked and verified, specifically whether the score stated therein is true and correct. The basis for the list was well explained by petitioner, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    It has been the constitutional (Paragraph (2), Section 2 and Section 3(B), Article IX, 1987 Philippine Constitution) and statutory (Paragraphs (7) and (8), Section 12, Chapter III, Subtitle A, Title I of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987) mandate of the CSC, being the central personnel agency of the government, to conduct and safeguard civil service examinations, and as a necessary incident thereof, issue and keep Certificates of Eligibility to qualified examinees to a particular CS Examination, on the basis of its own record. 13 (emphases supplied.)

    We therefore hold the masterlist to be the primary record of eligibles. It is the list officially prepared and kept by the petitioner pursuant to its constitutional and statutory mandates. It is what petitioner utilizes to verify the eligibility of applicants in government service. If we consider the certificate, as held by the appellate court, to be the primary record of one’s eligibility, there will be no way by which petitioner can countercheck the veracity of the entries therein. In effect, petitioner will be left without a process of corroborating the eligibility of applicants for government positions with permanent status. Government offices would be bound to accept a certificate as conclusive and incontestable, without any means of validation, notwithstanding that the certificate may have been spuriously manufactured or that an item therein may have been erroneously or irregularly entered. This is dangerous especially considering the fact that the high level of technological advancement can make easy the forgery and counterfeiting of these certificates.

    This brings us to the first issue petitioner raised. In contending that there was substantial evidence to hold respondent guilty of using a fake or spurious certificate of eligibility, petitioner relies on the failing mark she obtained in her examination, based on its masterlist of eligibles. Petitioner further contends that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, a person who is found in possession of a forged document, and who used the same, is presumed the forger thereof or the one who caused the forgery, and, therefore, is guilty of falsification. Petitioner then concludes that the use of fake or spurious civil service eligibility amounts to dishonesty and grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal from the service.

    These contentions are impressed with merit. Dishonesty is the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one’s office or connected with the performance of his duty. 14 It is a serious offense, which reflects on the person’s character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity. 15 Its immense debilitating effect on the government service cannot be overemphasized. 16

    Under Civil Service regulations, the use of fake or spurious civil service eligibility is regarded as dishonesty and grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal from the service. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 1991 provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    An act which includes the procurement and/or use of fake/spurious civil service eligibility, the giving of assistance to ensure the commission or procurement of the same, cheating, collusion, impersonation, or any other anomalous act which amounts to any violation of the Civil Service examination, has been categorized as a grave offense of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. (Emphasis supplied.)

    The question therefore is whether there is substantial evidence to hold that respondent procured and used a fake or spurious certificate of eligibility. We hold that there is.

    The masterlist of eligibles shows that respondent obtained a failing grade in the examination given on July 30, 1989. Contrary to what is stated in her certificate of eligibility that she passed it with an 81.20% rating, respondent’s actual score was only 40.96%. As we have ruled that the masterlist is the primary record of eligibles, the entry therein must prevail. Well to emphasize, the masterlist of eligibles is an official record. It is formally prepared and kept by petitioner pursuant to both its constitutional and statutory mandates to conduct and safeguard civil service examinations and to maintain a register of eligibles. As such, every entry made therein is presumed genuine and accurate unless proven otherwise. Section 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Sec. 44. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty especially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

    Respondent failed to explain the discrepancy in her grades appearing in the masterlist and her certificate of eligibility. She was not able to offer proof that the score indicated in her certificate was due to the error or mistake of petitioner’s own personnel. In fact, she did not even get a certification from petitioner that her certificate was issued by it.

    The bare testimony of respondent that she has nothing to do with forging the certificate as she actually just received it by mail in her residential address deserves scant belief. We cannot accept her simplistic claim that she used the certificate under the false impression that it was genuine. The three witnesses 17 and the various documents she presented cannot exculpate her. The witnesses, in essence, merely testified that they received the certificate of eligibility in question from Respondent. Their belief that she was eligible was based on their reliance on the certificate.

    Apropos is the following finding of petitioner:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The testimonies of the three (3) abovementioned witnesses failed to rebut the fact that Cayobit did not pass the examination and does not have an eligibility. Respondent also failed to prove that she had no participation in the procurement of eligibility. Hence it cannot be presumed that Cayobit used the fake eligibility in good faith. 18

    In fine, we hold that the evidence presented by petitioner is substantial to support a finding that respondent is guilty of the offense charged against her. The established facts lead us to accept the conclusion that she indeed procured and used a fake or spurious certificate of eligibility and, in accordance with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 1991, committed dishonesty and grave misconduct. It bears stressing that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is only substantial. 19 It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. 20 The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct, 21 even if the evidence might not be overwhelming. 22

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, the assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. We find respondent Evelyn P. Cayobit Guilty of the charge of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. Accordingly, the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service, with the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification from taking any civil service examination and disqualification from holding public office, is imposed on her.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Ynares-Santiago and Carpio, JJ., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Formal Charge, p. 1; Rollo, p. 42.

    2. Resolution No. 95-0111, January 5, 1995, p. 2; C.A. Rollo, C.A.-G.R. SP No. 36978, p. 19.

    3. G.R. No. 119489.

    4. Resolution, G.R. No. 119489, April 5, 1995.

    5. Entitled "Evelyn P. Cayobit v. Civil Service Commission and National Housing Authority."cralaw virtua1aw library

    6. 235 SCRA 469 (1994).

    7. CSC Resolution No. 87-070 provides: the applications, Personal Data Sheets and Answer sheets of examinees who passed in the Civil Service examinations together with the accomplished Picture Seat plan shall be destroyed or disposed of to authorized government agencies after five (5) years from the date of the release of examination, subject to such safeguards the Commission, Department or agency head may determine.

    8. Decision, p. 14; Rollo, p. 40.

    9. Petition, p. 7; Id. at 15.

    10. Chapter V, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V, Executive Order No. 292.

    11. Sec. 5, Rule III, Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292.

    12. See Masterlist of Eligibles attached as Annex D of the Petition; Rollo, p. 44.

    13. Memorandum for the Petitioner, p. 11; Id. at 131.

    14. F. Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary 276 (3rd ed., 1988).

    15. Prieto v. Cariaga, 242 SCRA 315 (1995).

    16. Ibid.

    17. Adorie Sison, an employee at the Personnel Department of the NHA central office; Clemente Daseco, Liaison Officer of NHA; and Flordeliza M. Sanchez, also an employee at the Personnel Department of the NHA central office.

    18. Resolution No. 95-0111, January 5, 1995, p. 1; C.A. Rollo, C.A.-G.R. SP No. 36978, p. 18.

    19. Caña v. Gebusion, 329 SCRA 132 (2000).

    20. Betguen v. Masangcay, 238 SCRA 475 (1994).

    21. See Consolidated Food Corp. v. NLRC, 315 SCRA 129 (1999).

    22. Villaflor v. CA, 280 SCRA 297 (1997).

    G.R. No. 145737   September 3, 2003 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. EVELYN P. CAYOBIT


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED