EN BANC
[G.R. No. 139288. February 28, 2000]
LEONIDA S.
ROMERO, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
VITUG, J.:
Petitioner, Leonida S. Romero, is a Budget
Officer II at the Department of Agriculture, Regional Office No. 1, San
Fernando City.
miso
On 07 December 1980, petitioner, claiming to
be the daughter of a veteran during the last war, applied for and availed
herself of Veterans Preference Rating ("VPR") of 10% to secure a
permanent status for her appointment in the government. Upon compliance with
the basic requirements therefor and the submission of the necessary documents
in support of the application, petitioner was granted a Career Service
Professional Eligibility and later appointed on permanent status at the
Department of Agriculture regional office.
Following numerous reports reaching public
respondent Civil Service Commission that a number of parents claimed by VPR
availees might not actually be veterans, the Commission temporarily suspended
the program. When the suspension was lifted, a re-evaluation was conducted on
the grant of the 10% VPR. On 16 September 1993, Philippine Veterans Affairs
Office ("PVAO") submitted a report on the results of a revalidation
of its records. The name of Pedro H. Soliven, the father of petitioner, was in
the list of unconfirmed names.
The Civil Service Commission, in its
resolution No. 95-5057 of 17 August 1995, found a prima facie case
against petitioner. The latter was formally charged with Dishonesty and
Falsification of Official Documents in the same resolution. In her answer to
the charge, petitioner denied all allegations of dishonesty and averred that
the certification issued by the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office in Manila
(PVAO-4 Form No. 21132 A), dated 10 February 1987, was not a misrepresentation
but an official document duly issued by PVAO. Petitioner likewise presented
before the Commission documents to prove her filiation. During the
clarificatory hearing that followed, Emma M. Cierva, PVAO Records Officer III,
submitted a certification, dated 27 February 1997, to the following effect; viz: spped
"THIS IS
TO CERTIFY that after a re-verification of available records in this
Office, the name SOLIVEN, PEDRO T. appears in the Approved Revised
Reconstructed Guerilla Roster (ARRGR) of 1948 as Pvt. of G Co., USAFIP-NL and
Philippine Veterans Bank Listing."[1]
The Commission, on further examination of
the records, observed that the complete name of petitioner’s father was Pedro
Hadloc Soliven. In view of what appeared to be a discrepancy, the Commission
again sought clarification from PVAO whether the name of Pedro H. Soliven was
in its list of veterans. In response to the query, Records Officer Cierva wrote
a letter, bearing date of 30 October 1997, stating -
"For your
information and guidance, the name SOLIVEN, PEDRO H. is not carried in
the Approved Revised Reconstructed Guerilla Roster of 1948 nor a record of any
approved claim (sic). Only SOLIVEN, PEDRO T. appears in the same Roster
under G Co., USAFIP-NL. (Underscoring ours)."[2]
The CSC thereupon coordinated with the
Records Management and Archives Office (RMAO) in Manila and requested for
available documents about Pedro H. Soliven and Pedro T. Soliven. In a letter,
dated 04 May 1998, Teresita R. Ignacio, Chief, Archives Division, RMAO, wrote -miso
"In
connection with your letter of April 6, 1998 re: birth record of PEDRO H.
SOLIVEN we regret to inform you that the document requested is not available in
our files.
"x x x x x x x
x x
"NOTE: Register
of Births for Sta. Lucia, Ilocos Sur on file with this Office are inclusive
only of 1922-1932. What we can issue in this regard is a certificate of
non-availability. About PEDRO T. SOLIVEN, we can not furnish you a copy of the
said document if you cannot provide us the informations needed."[3]
The Civil Service Commission in its
Resolution No. 982860, dated 04 November 1998, ultimately held petitioner
Leonida S. Romero guilty of Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Documents.
Thus:
"In as much
as the documents on record show that the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office
(PVAO) has only the record of Pedro T. Soliven and none of Pedro H. Soliven,
respondent’s father, Romero failed to controvert the fact that the VPR
Certificate she used was spurious and that she is not entitled to such veteran
preference rating since her father is not a veteran. In the absence of
satisfactory explanation, any person who is found in possession of or who used
a forged document is the forger or one who caused the forgery (People vs.
Cabagnot, 300 SCRA 993 and Alarcon vs. CA, 19 SCRA 681). spped
"WHEREFORE,
Leonida S. Romero is hereby found guilty of Dishonesty and Falsification of
Official Documents. Accordingly, she is meted out the penalty of dismissal with
all the accessory penalties."[4]
Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied by the Commission in its Resolution No.
990601 of 09 March 1999.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed her petition for
review before the Court of Appeals. The petition, however, was outrightly
dismissed by the Court of Appeals in its resolution of 18 May 1999 on the
following grounds:
"Upon
examination of the petitioner’s urgent Motion for Extension of Time to file
Petition for Review, and the Petition for Review itself, and it appearing that
--
"1. It does not contain a statement of the
specific material date, showing when the petitioner actually received a copy of
Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 982860 (Annex C of the Petition), dated
November 4, 1998, which will thus enable this Court to determine whether the
petitioner seasonably filed her motion for reconsideration thereof; miso
"2. The Petition does not spell out the
grounds relied upon for the review; and
"3. The copy of Resolution No. 955057 (Annex G
of the Petition), dated August 17, 1995, is not a properly certified true copy
thereof, in violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 3-96, dated
April 17, 1996 to wit:
"x x x x x x x
x x
"All these in
violation of Sections 6 and 7, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, to wit:
"‘Sec. 6.
Contents of the petition. -- The petition for review shall (a) state the full
names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies
either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the
facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of
the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified
true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and
other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against
forum-shopping as provided in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42. The
petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed
within the period fixed herein.’ spped
S"‘Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with
requirements. -- The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful
fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents
of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal thereof.’"[5]
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
denied by the appellate court in its Resolution of 17 June 1999.
Hence, this petition, asseverating -
"a. That the Honorable Court of
Appeals abused its judicial discretion in denying petitioner/appellant’s Motion
for Reconsideration;
"b. That the respondent/appellee made a
reversible error in finding the petitioner/appellant guilty of the offenses
charged and which were not supported by any material evidence on record."[6]
It would appear that petitioner has spelled
out, basically adequate, the grounds relied upon for the review of her petition
before the Court of Appeals. This Court will thus limit itself to the first and
third reasons for the outright dismissal by the appellate court of the appeal
of petitioner.
miso
Petitioner was faulted for her failure to
state in her petition before the Court of Appeals the date when she actually
received a copy of Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 982860, dated 04
November 1998, which had declared her guilty of dishonesty and falsification of
official documents, that could enable the appellate court to determine whether
or not petitioner was able to seasonably file her motion for reconsideration
with the Civil Service Commission.
Evidently, the motion seeking the
reconsideration of Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 982860 was given due
course. Indeed, it was resolved on the merits by the Civil Service Commission.
It could be fairly assumed that petitioner timely filed her motion for
reconsideration with the Commission on time for, otherwise, the motion would
have been dismissed on that ground. It might be stressed, furthermore, that the
rule to the effect that "the petition shall state the specific material
dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein," should be
taken to refer more particularly to the date of receipt of the award, judgment,
final order or resolution appealed from for the purpose of determining whether
or not the appeal or petition was seasonably brought up to the appellate body
or tribunal.
Relative to the third ground, i.e., that the
copy of Resolution No. 955057, dated 17 August 1995, is not a properly
certified true copy, it should be pointed out that Resolution No. 955057
constitutes, by its nature, more as the formal charge against petitioner Leonida
Romero rather than the "decision" of the Commission appealed from.
There is no dispute about the existence of this particular piece of document,
the contents of which have, in fact, been quoted in the decision (Resolution
No. 990601) of the Civil Service Commission sought by petitioner to be reviewed
before the appellate court. apdc
At all events, justifications could exist to
warrant a liberal application of the rules. In one case,[7] petitioner therein, a public school teacher, was
meted the penalty of six (6) months suspension by the Civil Service Commission
for allegedly participating in the mass action/illegal strike of teachers.
Unsatisfied, said petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45 with the
Court of Appeals which petition, however, was outrightly dismissed for being an
inappropriate remedy or wrong mode of appeal pursuant to then Circular No.
2-90; viz: apdc
"(4)
Erroneous Appeals - An appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed."
On appeal to this Court, the appellate court
was directed to reinstate the petition. The Court stressed that the Circular
should be so interpreted and applied as to attain, not defeat, the ultimate
purpose of the rules of procedure to achieve substantial justice.[8] It explained:
"More
importantly, the appeal on its face appears to be impressed with merit. Hence,
the Court of Appeals should have overlooked the insubstantial defects of the
petition. x x x There is indeed nothing sacrosanct about procedural rules,
which should be liberally construed in order to promote their object and assist
the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action
or proceeding. As it has been said, where the rigid application of the rules
would frustrate substantial justice, or bar the vindication of a legitimate
grievance, the courts are justified in exempting a particular case from the
operation of the rules."[9]
In this instance, petitioner has been in the
government service for more than twenty (20) years without any previous adverse
record against her. Along with the severity of the penalty imposed on her,
i.e., dismissal from the service with all the accessory penalties, it is the
considered view of this Court that there exist sound reasons to here justify
the liberal spirit of the rules to pervade. Once again, the Court reiterates
its observation in Nerves vs. Civil Service Commission (citing A-One Feeds, Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 590):
"Litigations
should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicality.
Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon, and the rules
of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they
are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice and thereby
defeat their very aims. As has been the constant ruling of this Court, every
party litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and
just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of
technicalities."
WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 52742, dated 18 May 1999, which outrightly dismissed the petition, and
its Resolution of 17 June 1999, which denied the motion for reconsideration,
are SET ASIDE. The petition is reinstated and the case is remanded to the
appellate court for further proceedings. No costs.
SO ORDERED. spped
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo,
Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Gonzaga-Reyes,
Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon,
Jr., JJ., concur.
Buena, J., on leave.