[G.R. No. 133704.September
DELIVERIO vs. GALICINAO
hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated SEP 18 2001
G.R. No. 133704(Anacleto D. Deliverio vs.
Alberto V. Galicinao.)
Before us is a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
assailing the Resolution dated 10 October 1997 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 44960 which denied outright petitioner's petition for review;
and Resolution dated January 9, 1998 denying his motion for reconsideration.
This case stemmed from the
complaint for dishonesty filed by Alberto V. Galicinao against Anacleto D.
Deliverio, petitioner, for falsification of Civil Service Form 212 (personal
In October, 1995, the
Civil Service Regional Office (CSRO) No. IX, Zamboanga City, took cognizance of
the complaint by formally charging petitioner, then Secretary to the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Zamboanga del Sur, with dishonesty thru falsification
of official documents. The formal charge reads:
you indicated in your Personal Data Sheet of 1973 that you are a third year
commerce, such that you are qualified for the position of Assistant Provincial
Secretary thereat and that you qualified for the April 25, 1975 Career Service
(Professional) Examination. You also indicated in your personal data sheet that
you finished Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and Journalism at
the Manuel L. Quezon University when in truth and in fact you finished only
three (3) semesters in Commerce at said University."
In his answer, dated 25
September petitioner averred, partly quoted as follows:
"There was no
dishonesty on the part of the undersigned when supplying the Information
required in the Personal Data Sheets attached to his appointment in 1973 and
1983. There was, however, confusion and uncertainty, because the undersigned
was not able to secure any transcript of records ever since, after he stopped
attending school at MLQ University due to financial hardship and difficulties.
The truth of the matter was that the undersigned enrolled in the special course
in Journalism before taking up the regular course in Commerce or BSBA with the
thought that the course was part of the university's curriculum such that earning
thirty-six (36) units in one semester could be a big bonus. It was only lately
that the undersigned discovered and ascertained that the special course was
actually outside of the university's curriculum being offered as a recruitment
scheme by a consortium of publishers and broadcast entities... The 36 units
supposedly earned by the students were to be credited only if they proceed to
take up regular course in Journalism in any of the university where the special
course was offered. The confusion and uncertainty can be gleaned from the fact
that the undersigned even failed to reckon the exact year in which he finished
high school and the semesters during which he enrolled in the special course in
journalism and in commerce. x x x
the units credited or the special (vocational) course in Journalism, comprising
eleven (11) subjects at three (3) units each and one (1) subject units six (6)
units, the undersigned has actually earned eighty-seven (87) units in college,
clearly well beyond the minimum requirement for appointment to the position of
Assistant Provincial Secretary and qualify for the Career
The Civil Service Regional
Office No. IX found a prima facie case
against petitioner and eventually elevated to the Civil Service Commission
(CSC) the records of the case.
On November 21, 1996, the
CSC rendered a Resolution finding petitioner Anacleto D. Deliverio guilty of
dishonesty. He was meted the penalty of dismissal from the service including
its accessory penalties.
On December 31, 1996,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied by the CSC in its
Resolution No. 97-3230 dated 7 July 1997.
petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review with prayer
for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
In a Resolution dated 10
October 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright on two (2)
grounds: (1) the petition does not
allege the specific material dates showing it was filed within the reglementary
period, in violation of Section 6, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended; and (2)
petitioner failed to attach to his petition a written explanation why the
service or filing thereof was not done personally, in violation of Section 11,
Rule 13 of the same Rules.
filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Appellate Court.
Hence, this petition
ascribing to the Court of Appeals the following errors: (1) In finding "that the subject Petition for Review fails to
state the specific material dates;" (2)
In holding "that the petitioner fails to submit the written explanation
regarding proof of service;" and (3)
"In dismissing outright the subject petition only on account of the above grounds
In his comment on the
petition, the Solicitor General contends that there is no compelling reason to
relax the strict application of procedural rules; and that the dismissal of
petitioner from the service by the CSC on the ground of dishonesty, not shown
to have been vitiated by fraud, must be upheld by this Court.
We reviewed very closely
petitioner's allegations in his petition filed with the Court of Appeals, thus:
"11. That on November
21, 1996, the Civil Service Commission resolved to penalize petitioner by
dismissal from the service including the accessory penalties as shown in CSC
Resolution No. 96-7521, marked as Exhibit "A';
12. That on December
31, 1996, or ten (10) days after petitioner received his copy of the
above specified resolution of the Commission, he filed an urgent
motion for serious reconsideration attached hereto as Exhibit "B";
13. That on July
7, 1997, the Commission resolved to deny petitioner's motion for
reconsideration 'as shown in its Resolution No. 97-3230 submitted hereto
as Exhibit "C"."
petition does not allege the date when petitioner received a copy of the CSC
Resolution No. 97-3230 denying his motion for reconsideration.
While the records show
that on August 8, 1997, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals his petition
for review, however, we have no way of determining whether it was filed within
the 15 day reglementary period.
As earlier mentioned, the
second ground relied upon by the Court of Appeals in dismissing the petition
was petitioner's failure to attach thereto a written explanation why its
service or filing was not done personally.
Petitioner explains that
there is no need to submit such written explanation because, as the records
show, he resides in far away Pagadian City. Consequently, he had to file and
serve his petition by mail.
is bereft of merit.
In Solar Team
Entertainment, Inc. vs. Ricafort 1 293 SCRA 661 (1998)., penned by Chief Justice Hilario
G. Davide, Jr., this Court held:
"We thus take this
opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, personal service and
filing is the general rule, and
resort to other modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth,
whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in light of the
circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is
mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to
other modes be had, which must then be
accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was
not practicable to begin with. In adjudging the plausibility of an
explanation, a court shall likewise consider the importance of the subject
matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of
the pleading sought to he expunged for violation of Section 11. This Court cannot rule otherwise, lest we
allow circumvention of the innovation introduced by the 1997 Rules in order to obviate
delay in the administration of justice."
Thus, in dismissing the
petition, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not commit a reversible error.
There is another reason
why the present petition must fail. It raises factual issues. The parties'
pleadings (earlier quoted) show that the main controversy is whether or not
petitioner acted in good faith in
indicating in his CS Form 212 that lie finished Journalism in 1962 and BSBA in
1963-1965 at Manuel L. Quezon University. Respondent CSC held that "respondent
must convincingly show the facts and
circumstances that lead him to act in good faith before such defense could be
given weight. And the respondent failed to do so."
This Court is not a trier
of facts. In Valmonte vs Court of Appeals 2 303 SCRA 278,citing Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Court
of Appeals, 256 SCRA 15., we held:
"To begin with, succinct and
unmistakable is the consistent pronouncement that the Supreme Court is not a
trier of facts. And well entrenched is the doctrine that pure questions of fact
may not be the proper subject of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court, as this mode of appeal is generally confined to
question of law,"
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Acting Asst. Clerk of Court