Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
|
CESAR S. DUMDUMA, |
|
G.R. No. 182606 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
CORONA, C.J. CARPIO, |
|
|
|
VELASCO, JR., |
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
BRION, |
|
|
|
PERALTA, |
|
- versus - |
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
|
|
DEL CASTILLO, |
|
|
|
ABAD, |
|
|
|
VILLARAMA, JR., |
|
|
|
PEREZ, |
|
|
|
MENDOZA, |
|
|
|
SERENO, |
|
|
|
REYES, and |
|
|
|
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. |
|
CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
December 4, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I
S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Before the Court is a
Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
assailing the January 31, 2008 Decision,[2]
as well as the April 10, 2008 Resolution,[3]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 98207, which affirmed the order
of the respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissing petitioner Cesar S.
Dumduma (Dumduma) from government service.
Factual
Antecedents
Dumduma entered public service in
1979 as a patrolman in the then Integrated National Police.[4] He steadfastly rose through the ranks until
he was promoted in 1991 as Senior Police Officer 4 (SPO4) of the Philippine
National Police (PNP). He was then
designated as officer-in-charge of San Miguel Police Station in San Miguel,
Leyte.[5] On December 15, 1998, he took the Career
Service Professional Examination in Quezon City.[6]
On March 7, 1999, Dumduma filled out
a Personal Data Sheet (PDS) pursuant to his promotional appointment as Police
Inspector. On Item No. 18 of the PDS,
Dumduma stated that he passed the Career Service Professional Examination
Computer-Assisted Test in Quezon City on December 15, 1998 with a rating of
81%.[7] His appointment was then forwarded to the
PNP-CSC Field Office on April 16, 1999 for verification and approval.[8] It was then discovered that Dumduma did not
have the proper civil service eligibility, contrary to what he disclosed in his
PDS. His name was not included in the
CSC-National Capital Region (CSC-NCR) Regional Register of Eligibles for the
Career Service Professional Examination conducted on December 15, 1998;
instead, his name appeared in the Regional List of Passing/Failing
Examinees with a rating of 25.82%.
Accordingly, the director of the CSC-NCR, Adoracion F. Arenas disapproved
Dumdumas appointment on the ground of spurious eligibility.[9] On June 6, 2002, the CSC-NCR formally charged
Dumduma with Dishonesty.[10]
Dumduma denied the charge.[11] His
version of the circumstances surrounding his alleged eligibility is as follows:
Prior to the date of the examination, Dumduma met a certain Salome Dilodilo
(Dilodilo), who was allegedly a retired CSC director. Dilodilo promised Dumduma her total support
in [Dumdumas] x x x examination [but] (i)n return, she asked [Dumduma] to
convince [his] close friend x x x to sell x x x a property x x x [to her].[12] On the day before the examination,[13] Dumduma
and Dilodilo went to the CSC Office located at Kaliraya Street, Quezon City in
order to facilitate an early examination schedule[14] for
Dumduma. The following day, December 15,
1998, Dumduma took the Career Service Professional Examination.[15] A week later, he received his Certificate of
Eligibility[16]
from an unnamed person, who claimed to be Dilodilos emissary.[17] The
Certificate of Eligibility stated that Dumduma passed the examination with a
rating of 81%.[18] Dumduma then wrote the said information in
his PDS, allegedly in good faith that the Certificate of Eligibility was
authentic.
Dumduma waived the formal
investigation and submitted the case for resolution based on the available
documents.[19]
Decision
of Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region[20]
The CSC-NCR held that the
Certificate of Eligibility relied upon by Dumduma in making his PDS entry was
spurious because it was contrary to the CSCs Regional List of Eligibles. The Regional List prevails over the
Certificate of Eligibility because the former is the primary official record of
eligibles hence is presumed genuine and accurate, unless proven otherwise. Since Dumduma failed to satisfactorily
explain the discrepancy posed by his Certificate of Eligibility, the
presumption is that the same was falsified for his benefit.[21] Based
on CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, series of 1991, Dumdumas procurement and
use of a spurious Certificate of Eligibility constituted the offense of
Dishonesty,[22] which
merited dismissal from
government service with
all the accessory
penalties.[23]
Ruling
of the Civil Service Commission
Dumduma appealed the adverse CSC-NCR
Decision to the CSC. Dumduma maintained
his good faith in relying on the Certificate of Eligibility that was delivered
to his residence. Any defect in his
Certificate of Eligibility must be blamed on some unnamed and unknown CSC
personnel, who most probably authored the falsification. Without any proof that he colluded with these
CSC personnel, Dumduma contended that he cannot be found guilty of dishonesty.[24]
In its Resolution No. 060098[25] dated
January 23, 2006, the CSC found Dumdumas version of how he obtained his
certificate of eligibility implausible.
The CSC noted that the standard operating procedure for the Career
Service Professional Examination Computer-Assisted Test is to hand-over the
certificates of eligibility of the passers immediately after the examination. Since Dumduma did not get his certificate in
the standard manner, he had the burden of explaining what merited the
unorthodox procedure. This he failed to
do.[26]
The CSC further held that Dumduma
failed to rebut the presumption that he, as possessor of a falsified document,
was the author thereof. His bare
assertion of good faith could not stand against the presumption.[27] The CSC thus affirmed the CSC-NCRs Decision.
The dispositive portion of the CSCs January
23, 2006
Resolution
reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the
appeal of Cesar
S. Dumduma is
hereby
DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the Decision dated March 19, 2004 of the CSC-NCR, finding
him guilty of Dishonesty and imposing on him the penalty of dismissal from the
service, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from
reemployment in the government service is hereby AFFIRMED. Further, since
this involves disbursements of funds for the salaries and benefits of Dumduma
after his appointment was disapproved, let a copy of this decision be furnished
the Commission on Audit for its appropriate action. The CSC-NCR is hereby ordered to monitor the
implementation of this Resolution.
Quezon
City, January 23, 2006.[28]
Dumduma filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but the same was denied in CSC Resolution No. 070306[29] dated
February 19, 2007.
Ruling
of the Court of Appeals
Dumduma reiterated his defense of
good faith in his appeal to the CA,[30] but the appellate court was unconvinced. The CA found substantial evidence supporting
the conclusion that Dumdumas Certificate of Eligibility was spurious. It was contrary to the entries in the
Regional List of Passing/Failing Examinees and those in the Regional Register
of Eligibles. Moreover, it was delivered
to Dumduma contrary to the standard operating procedures of CSC.[31]
The CA held that Dumdumas
possession and use of the falsified certificate for his own benefit created the
presumption that he was the author of such falsification. It was incumbent upon
Dumduma to overcome the said presumption with controverting evidence. His bare assertion of good faith did not
suffice as a rebuttal.[32]
The CA disposed in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant petition is DISMISSED. The assailed CSC Resolutions STAND.
SO
ORDERED.[33]
Dumduma moved for a reconsideration
but the CA denied the same in its Resolution dated April 10, 2008.[34]
Our Ruling
Petitioner Dumduma is now before us
questioning the sufficiency of the evidence against him. He is of the impression that he was found
guilty of dishonesty on a mere presumption that the holder of a forged
document is the forger despite the presence of contrary evidence.[35] His alleged contrary evidence consist of the
apparent authenticity of his Certificate of Eligibility (which did not alert
him to any irregularity therein)[36] and the
absence of evidence that he colluded with CSC personnel to falsify the
certificate.[37]
The question raised by Dumduma
regarding the CAs appreciation of the evidence against him is ineluctably one
of fact, which is beyond the ambit of this Courts jurisdiction in a petition
for review on certiorari. It is not this Courts task to go over the
proofs presented below to ascertain if they were appreciated and weighed
correctly, most especially when the CA and the CSC speak as one in their
findings and conclusions.[38] While
it is widely held that this rule of limited jurisdiction admits of exceptions,
none exists, or is even alleged as existing, in the instant case.
The Court agrees with the CSC and
the CA that the undisputed facts, as revealed by the evidence, make out a clear
case of dishonesty against Dumduma. When
Dumdumas claim of eligibility was contradicted by the CSC Register of
Eligibles and the List of Passing/Failing Examinees, it became incumbent upon
Dumduma to explain why he made the incorrect entry in his PDS. Unlike his PDS entry, the CSC records are
presumed correct and made in the regular course of official business.[39] In explaining his action, however, Dumduma
dug a deeper hole from which he could not extricate himself.
He admitted in his Counter-Affidavit
that Dilodilo, a retired CSC official, promised to help him with his CSC
examination in exchange for a personal favor.
They then proceeded to the CSC Office together and Dilodilo was welcomed
by her former colleagues. After Dumduma took the exam, he went home without
knowing the result thereof (a procedure that is contrary to CSC practice). Several days later, Dumduma professed that he
received his Certificate of Eligibility from a man sent by Dilodilo, who is a retiree hence without official ties with
the CSC. Instead of exculpating him,
Dumdumas explanation completed the evidence against him. He not only failed to explain the
discrepancy, he even explained how he obtained a spurious Certificate of
Eligibility.
Dumduma asserts that, despite the
questionable circumstances, he is in good faith and that the blame is with the
CSC personnel who gave him a Certificate of Eligibility. Their actions should not be attributable to
him, unless there is evidence that he colluded with them.
Dumdumas contention is in stark
contrast to his admissions and does not merit belief. The concept of good faith in administrative
cases such as this one is explained in a recent case in this wise:
Good
faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of
intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the
holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any
unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law,
together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts
which render [a] transaction unconscientious.
In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal, we can
ascertain a persons intention not from his own protestation of good faith,
which is self-serving, but from evidence of his conduct and outward acts.[40]
In
the instant case, the facts and circumstances surrounding Dumdumas acquisition
of the Certificate of Eligibility cast serious doubts on his good faith. He made a deal with a retired CSC official
and accepted the Certificate of Eligibility from her representative. These
circumstances reveal Dumdumas knowledge that Dilodilo could have pulled
strings in order to obtain his Certificate of Eligibility and have it delivered
to his residence. How else would a
retired employee obtain the said certificate?
Dumduma cannot feign innocence given his unquestioning cooperation with
Dilodilo.
Besides, whether some CSC personnel
should be held administratively liable for falsifying Dumdumas Certificate of
Eligibility is beside the point. The
fact that someone else falsified the certificate will not excuse Dumduma for
knowingly using the same for his career advancement.
Dumduma maintains that it is
entirely possible that his Certificate of Eligibility is correct and that the
CSCs Register of Eligibles and the List of Passing/Failing Examinees are the
ones with incorrect entries. In light of
the circumstances, the Court cannot accept this theory. As Dumduma himself
admitted, he did not obtain the Certificate of Eligibility from the CSC but
from a representative of his facilitator, Dilodilo. The official records kept by the CSC deserve
credence compared to a certificate that admittedly originated from a dubious
source.
This is not the first time that a
government employee had been dismissed from service for falsification of his
eligibility for appointment purposes.
Maniebo
v. Court of Appeals[41] is analogous to the instant case.
Maniebo denied any participation in the preparation of her spurious Certificate
of Eligibility. She maintained that she
only received the same through the mails and was in good faith in submitting
the same for her appointment. The Court held that the presumption of good faith
does not apply when the employees Certificate of Eligibility conflicts with
the CSCs Masterlist of Eligibles. Moreover,
the Court did not accept Maniebos long and satisfactory government service in
order to mitigate the penalty of dismissal.
The Court noted that Maniebo was undeserving of the mitigation given her
refusal to own up to, and her lack of remorse for, her dishonesty.
In Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission,[42] Bacsasar obtained her Certificate of
Eligibility from a private individual and not from the CSC. The CSC verified the spurious nature of her
eligibility because Bacsasar was not included in the CSC Masterlist of Passing/Failing
Examinees. The Court rejected Bacsasars
defense of good faith given that she did not even take the civil service
exam.
In Civil Service Commission v. Cayobit,[43] Cayobit
received her Certificate of Eligibility through mail and maintained that she
believed the same to be genuine. The
Court found her guilty of dishonesty given that she failed to explain the
discrepancy in her passing grade in the certificate and the failing grade
reflected in the CSC masterlist.
Like Dumduma, the dismissed employee
in Re: Tessie G. Quires[44] also
maintained that she was merely a victim of fixers operating within the CSC
Office. The Court did not accede to her pleas and meted the prescribed penalty
for dishonesty.
Disapproved
Appointment of Limgas[45] also involved an employee who maintained
that she acted in complete reliance that the Certificate of Eligibility she
received after taking the CSC examination was authentic. Limgas claimed that
she was a victim of an injustice perpetrated by fixers, insiders and
syndicates operating in the Regional Offices of the CSC.[46] In rejecting her plea, the Court expressed
its disbelief that a fixer would act for Limgas benefit, without the latter
having any knowledge of the anomalous transaction.
Guided by the foregoing cited authorities, the Court holds that the CA
did not err in affirming the penalty of dismissal and all its accessory
penalties imposed by the CSC. Only those
who can live up to the constitutional exhortation that public office is a public
trust deserve the honor of continuing in public service.
Dumduma
makes a final plea for leniency but the law and the prevailing jurisprudence
binds the hands of this Court. We cannot
change the imposable penalties for a clear case of dishonesty without at the
same time, visiting injustice against all the other government employees that
were similarly placed but received the full force of the law.
Nevertheless,
the Court recognizes that petitioner was once an outstanding member of the
police force. He risked life and limb
serving the citizenry of Region 8 with total dedication and hard work. His service record shows that, since his
original appointment in 1979, he patiently rose through the ranks until he was
promoted to SPO4 in 1991. While justice
exhorts that petitioner suffer the full penalties imposed by law, temperance
cries out that he be recognized for whatever good he has done prior to his
mistake. Thus, the Court deems proper,
on a pro hac vice basis, to extend
financial assistance of P50,000.00 to petitioner, which amount shall be
taken from his forfeited retirement benefits. This award in no sense mitigates
his offense but is made solely out of equity and humanitarian
considerations.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The assailed January 31, 2008 Decision and April 10, 2008 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98207 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is extended a FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE of P50,000.00, to be taken from his
forfeited retirement benefits on a pro
hac vice basis.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
JOSE Associate Justice |
(No part)
|
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
MARIA Associate Justice |
|
BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate Justice |
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
C E R T
I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-24.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Dumdumas
Counter-Affidavit, id. at 73.
[13]
[14] Affidavit
of Ester B. Pablico, id. at 74.
[15] Counter-Affidavit,
id. at 72.
[16]
[17] Affidavit
of Bernardita D. Balderian, id. at 49.
[18]
[19] Order
dated March 19, 2004, id. at 53.
[20] Decision in Adm. Case No. 02-06-020, id. at 50-57; penned by CSC
Director IV Agnes D. Padilla.
[21]
[22]
[23] The
dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE,
this Office hereby finds CESAR S. DUMDUMA guilty of DISHONESTY. Accordingly, he is meted out the penalty of
dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties of perpetual
disqualification from holding public office and from taking civil service
examination in the future. (
[24] Id. at 59.
[25]
[26] Id. at 63.
[27] Id.
[28]
[29]
[30] CA
Decision, pp. 6-7; id. at 31-32.
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35] Petitioners
Memorandum, id. at 151.
[36]
[37]
[38] Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission, G.R.
No. 180853, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 787, 794.
[39] Civil Service Commission v.
Cayobit, 457 Phil. 452, 459 (2003).
[40] Bacsasar v. Civil Service
Commission, supra note 38 at 795, citing Civil Service
Commission v. Maala, 504 Phil. 646 (2005).
[41] G.R. No. 158708, August 10, 2010, 627 SCRA 569.
[42] Supra
note 38.
[43] Supra note 39.
[44] A.M.
No. 05-5-268-RTC, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 349.
[45] 491 Phil. 160 (2005).
[46] Id. at 167.