Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > August 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 160202 : August 19, 2008] CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER VERSUS SALVADOR D. GARLIT, RESPONDENT :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated August 19, 2008

G.R. No. 160202 � CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner versus SALVADOR D. GARLIT, respondent.

On appeal is the Decision^[1] dated August 30, 2001 and the Resolution^[2] dated September 8, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53737. The appellate court reversed the decision of petitioner Civil Service Commissions (CSC) which dismissed the respondent Salvador D. Garlit from government service.

The facts as found by the Court of Appeals are as follows.

Respondent, an employee of the Office of the President, took the Career Service Professional Examination (CSPE) in 1983. He failed; so, five years later, he applied with petitioner CSC for the grant of Veteran Preference Rating (VPR) under Executive Order No. 790.^[3] Under this grant, a child of a Filipino war veteran may avail of benefits from such a status in the form of additional ten points to his rating in the CSPE.

Petitioner CSC approved respondent�s application, which was supported by a certified true copy of respondent�s birth certificate and a Joint Affidavit of Waiver^[4] in his favor executed by his father Artemio Garlitc and his sister Asuncion R. Garlit who waived their rights and interests under said law on Filipino war veterans. The Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) Certification No. 31919^[5] dated April 11, 1998, attested to the fact that respondent�s father was a veteran of World War II.

As such, a Certificate of Eligibility^[6] was issued by petitioner CSC on May 10, 1998, increasing respondent�s during rating 75% by virtue of the VPR grant.

Five years later, a review of veterans� records in connection with previous grant of VPR was undertaken in collaboration with the PVAO due to reports of spurious claims of VPR grantees that their parents were war veterans. It was then discovered that respondent�s father was one of those whose veteran status was unconfirmed. Petitioner then formally charged respondent with dishonestly and falsification of official documents arising from his alleged false claim in his VPR application that his father was a veteran. A certification was issued by one Emma M. Cierva, Records Officer III of the PVAO, stating that respondent�s father was not a veteran, as his name was carried neither in the Approved Revised Reconstructed Guerilla Roster of 1948 nor in the Philippine Veterans Bank Listing. He also did not have an approved claim for any benefit on file with the PVAO.^[7]

Petitioner found respondent guilty as charged on January 12, 1999.^[8] It dismissed him from the service �will all the accessory penalties� including the cancellation of his civil service eligibility. Petitioner also denied respondent�s motion for reconsideration five months later.

Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, posing the following issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EMBODIED IN CSC RESOLUTION NO. 990108 DATED 12 JANUARY 1999 (ANNEX A) AND CSC RESOLUTION NO. 991252 DATED 23 JUNE 1999 (ANNEX B) ARE SUPPORTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.^[9]

The Court of Appeals found merit in respondent�s appeal and reversed the petitioner�s decision, saying:

x x x x

Evidence is wanting in establishing petitioner�s culpability of the charges against him in connection with his application for and the subsequent grant unto him of he VPR.

The vital document in light of which petitioner�s alleged acts of falsification and dishonestly must be viewed is the PVAO issued Certification No. 31919 declaring petitioner�s father a war veteran which bears all the marks of a genuine public document and is thus prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated pursuant to Section 23 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court (People v. Benedictus, 288 SCRA 319, [1998]) which respondent failed to overcome.

That a certification was issued by PVAO Record Officer III Emma M. Cierva eight years later (after PVAO issued Certification No. 31919 dated April 11, 1988 � bases of respondent in approving petitioner�s application for grant of VPR) stating in effect that petitioner�s father is not a veteran is inconclusive, the bases thereof being the absence of his name in the Approved Revised Reconstructed Guerilla Roster of 1948 and in the Philippine Veterans bank Listing and the absence of any pending claim by his father for benefits with the PVAO. But petitioner�s father is, according to said Certification No. 31919, a veteran under ML/DIR No. 54-RG-70 and �certified [as such] to the PVB�.

The January 7, 1994 Memorandum of Agreement (Resolution No. 990108, p.3, Rollo) between respondent and the PVAO providing for the definition of a veteran cannot prejudice petitioner�s interest as a child of a veteran in the VPR grant. Said Memorandum of Agreement was forged about six years after Certification No. 31919 was issued in petitioner�s favor. The prospectivity principle applies to administrative rulings and circulars (Co v. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 444, 1993). Besides, the memorandum is not even a law.

Even assuming arguendo that Certification No. 31919 does not speak the truth about petitioner�s father being a war veteran, proof likewise is wanting that petitioner had any hand at all in preventing the same. The certification was solely issued by the PVAO in response to petitioner�s application with respondent [CSC] for a VPR grant.

WHEREFORE, for lack of substantial evidence to support the administrative charges against petitioner, the questioned Resolutions of respondent are SET ASIDE and another is rendered DISMISSING the administrative charge against him.

SO ORDERED.^[10]

Petitioner�s motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed the instant petition arguing that

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE PETITION OF GARLIT AND REVERSING THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE CSC.^[11]

Petitioner argues that since the name of Artemio Garlit is not found in any of the cited official records of PVAO, there is basis to conclude that respondent�s father was not a war veteran, and that he misrepresented the same only to avail himself of the VPR Eligibility. Petitioner states that respondent stands to benefit from such falsification; hence, the Latin maxim �Cui prodest scelus, es fecit� (He who profits from crime is guilty of it should apply to this case.^[12]

On September 22, 2003, however, while the instant petition was pending, respondent died.^[13] Hence, considering the administrative nature of the instant case, we resolve to dismiss the petition for being moot. The issue of whether respondent is liable for dishonesty and falsification; and should have been dismissed from the service is moot.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.

Carpio, J., on official leave. Morales, no part.

Endnotes:

---

^* Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales no part, ponente in CA.

^[1] Rollo, pp. 22-28. Penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales (now a member of the Court), with Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. concurring.

^[2] Id. at 30. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Regalado E. Maambong concurring.

^[3] EXTENDING THE PREFERENCE TO ANY ONE CHILD OF A VETERAN IN CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS, done on April 3, 1982.

^[4] CA rollo, p. 64.

^[5] Id. at 68.

^[6] Id. at 69.

^[7] Id. at 143.

^[8] Id. at 56.

^[9] Id. at 26.

^[10] Rollo, pp. 26-27.

^[11] Id. at 15.

^[12] Id. at 16.

^[13] Id. at 74, 02.