Case Presentation

STAGE 1

STAGE 2

STAGE 3

STAGE 4

CSCRO XII

COURT

OF

APPEALS

CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION

SUPREME COURT

The result of the investigation established the following facts:

1. On November 10, 1994, Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad, formerly Pagayanan M. Romero accomplished a Personal Data Sheet;

2. The said Personal Data Sheet was submitted to the Civil Service Field Office-COA to support her appointment as State Auditor I;

3. In Item number 18 of the Personal data Sheet, particularly on civil service eligibility, Hadji-Sirad indicated that she possesses Career Service Professional Eligibility having passed the examination on October 17, 1993 at Iligan City with a rating of 88.31%;

4. Accordingly, the examination records of Hadji-Sirad were retrieved. The same were compared with the entries in her Personal Data Sheet. It is revealed that:

4.1 Applicant and examinee Hadji-Sirad took the same as shown by the picture attached to the application form and picture seat plan for Room 003 Administration Building, Iligan City National High School, Iligan City. In fact, it is apparent that these pictures were taken from a single shot;

4.2 Comparison, however of these pictures with that found in the Personal Data Sheet of Hadji-Sirad dated November 10, 1994 reveals that appointee bears no semblance with applicant or examinee Hadji Sirad; Examinee Hadji Sirad looks older than the true Hadji Sirad despite the fact that the examination was conducted in 1993 while the Personal Data Sheet was accomplished in 1994;

4.3 There exist differences in the strokes used in affixing the signature in the picture seat plan compared with that in the personal data sheet. The examinee Hadji-Sirad used slanting strokes in affixing her signature while the appointee Hadji-Sirad utilized vertical strokes.

On February 4, 2002, Petitioner, an employee of the Commission on Audit (COA) in the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), was formally charged by CSCRO No. XII with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

The foregoing facts and circumstances indicate that Pagayanan Romero Hadji-Sirad allowed another person to take the October 17, 1993 Career Service Professional Examination. This act undermines the integrity of civil service examinations and warrants the institution for administrative case against her for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

WHEREFORE, Pagayanan Romero Hadji-Sirad is hereby formally charged with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

After the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by CSCRO XII, the petitioner appealed to Civil Service Commission Central Office

Formal Investigation

Petitioner herself took the witness stand on November 25, 2004. Petitioner admitted that she previously took the CS Professional Examination on November 29, 1992, but she failed the same. She again applied for and actually took the CS Professional Examination on 17 October 1993, which she passed.

The petitioner comes before the Supreme Court via the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, posing the following issues for resolution:

1. WHETHER OR NOT RULE 65 IS THE PROPER REMEDY

Petitioner insisted that the pictures and signatures appearing in the AF and PSP for the CS Professional Examination on October 17, 1993 were all hers. She confirmed knowing Adelaida L. Casanguan (Casanguan), one of her witnesses, who also took the CS Professional Examination on 17 October 1993 at Room 003, Administration Building of the Iligan City National High School.

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS IS CORRECT IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY PETITIONER BASED ON MERE TECHNICALITIES

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY IGNORING THE IMPORTANT PIECES OF EVIDENCE DULY PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Formal Investigation

The Decision of CSC

• The petitioner's appeal was DISMISSED.

• In CSC Resolution No. 070875 dated May 7, 2007, CSC agreed in the findings and decision of CSCRO No. XII

• In CSC Resolution No. 072196 dated 26 November 2007, the CSC also denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration

Casanguan, recounted that she took the CS Professional Examination on October 17, 1993 at Room 003, Administration Building of the Iligan City National High School, but she did not pass the same. She claimed that she knew petitioner, having seen the latter take the CS Professional Examination also on October 17, 1993 in the same room.

The petitioner did not present any controverting evidence sufficient enough to support her defense that indeed she was the same person appearing in the PSP and AF for the October 17, 1993 Career Service Professional Examination held in Iligan City and the one who actually took the said examination. In the November 22, 1992 Career Service Professional Examination records, the pictures attached to the PSP and AF and the signatures affixed thereon are very much similar to the picture and signature in her PDS, but not in the October 17, 1993 CS Professional Examination. The conclusion drawn from all these is that Hadji-Sirad took the November 22, 1992 Career Service Examination but she did not take the October 17, 1993 examinations. These are not mere inferences but are simple truth strongly supported by the evidence on record.

• The first hearing of the administrative case against the petitioner was repeatedly postponed, upon the petitioner's request. It was postponed 4 times, from original date of August 29, 2002 to April 16, 2003.

• On April 2, 2003, the petitioner filed a Motion to Change of Venue of hearing of the case from CSCRO XII in Cotabato City, to CSCRO No. X in Cagayan de Oro City. However, the CSC, in its Resolution No. 031139 dated 11 November 2003, denied petitioners Motion.

• The hearing of the case was again set on 19 February 2004. However, petitioner requested another postponement. The petitioner also sought further postponement of the hearings scheduled for 17 March and 31 March 2004.

• Finally, petitioner and her counsel attended the hearings on 17 May 2004 and 23 September 2004, and the prosecution was able to present its evidence.

Petitioners last witness was Dick U. Yasa (Yasa), a Personnel Specialist II of CSCRO No. XII, alleged seeing the petitioner in Room 003 of Iligan City National High School for the CS Professional Examination around 7:00 to 7:30 in the morning on October 17, 1993. Yasa was among those who assisted in the conduct of the CS Professional Examination held on the said date.

Formal Investigation

• The prosecution presented evidence establishing that petitioner previously took, and failed, the Career Service (CS) Professional Examination held on November 29, 1992 at Room 26, Iligan Capitol College, Iligan City.

• She allegedly again took the CS Professional Examination on October 17, 1993.

• The prosecution, however, claimed that, while petitioners pictures and signatures in her Application Form (AF) and Picture Seat Plan (PSP) for the CS Professional Examination on November 29, 1992 which she failed appeared similar to those in her PDS dated 10 November 1994, the pictures and signatures appearing in her AF and PSP for the CS Professional Examination on October 17, 1993 were different.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

On 18 January 2008, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dismissing the Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 02103-MIN for being a wrong mode of appeal.

CSCRO No. XII rendered its Decision on February 27, 2006

Petitioner should have filed a petition for review under Rule 43, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellate court likewise dismissed the Petition for petitioners failure to indicate therein the material date of filing of her Motion for Reconsideration before the CSC, and to append thereto the said Motion for Reconsideration, in violation of the second and third paragraphs of Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 12 March 2008.

Pagayanan Romero-Hadji Sirad is hereby found GUILTY of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

She is hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service. The accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, prohibition from entering the government service and disqualification from taking future government examinations are likewise imposed.

The prosecution then rested after its formal offer of evidence. It was petitioners turn to present evidence in her defense.

The petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that the CSC Resolutions dated 7 May 2007 and 26 November 2007 were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

The Petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 02103-MIN.

Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied by CSCRO No. XII in a Resolution dated May 30, 2006.

The Decision of Supreme Court

Given the foregoing, the Court finds that petitioner is, indeed, guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Dishonesty alone, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED. The Resolutions dated 18 January 2008 and 12 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 02103-MIN are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.

So Ordered.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY IGNORING THE IMPORTANT PIECES OF EVIDENCE DULY PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER

Petitioner cannot claim denial of due process when records reveal that..

1. Petitioner was given sufficient notice of the Formal Charge against her and the setting of the hearings of her administrative case before CSCRO No. XII;

2. Petitioner was formally charged after an initial investigation was conducted;

3. Her several requests for postponement of the hearings were granted;

4. The prosecution only presented evidence during the hearings on 17 May 2004 and 23 September 2004, when petitioner and her counsel were present;

5. Petitioner herself and her two witnesses, Casanguan and Yasa, got the opportunity to testify on 25 November 2004;

6. Only after the parties had submitted their arguments and evidence did CSCRO No. XII render its Decision on 27 February 2006;

7. Petitioner was able to file a Motion for Reconsideration with CSCRO No. XII, but it was denied;

8. Petitioner sought recourse with the CSC by filing an appeal, as well as a Motion for Reconsideration of the unfavorable judgment subsequently rendered by the CSC; and

9. When her Petition for Certiorari was dismissed by the Court of Appeals, petitioner was able to file the instant Petition before us [Supreme Court].

All these establish that petitioner was able to avail herself of all procedural remedies available to her.

Even if we were to overlook petitioners procedural lapses and review her case on the merits, the Court find no reason to reverse the petitioner's dismissal from service by the CSC because..

1. Petitioner was dismissed from service only after being accorded due process.

2. The Decision dated February 27, 2006 of CSCRO No. XII, affirmed by the CSC, which dismissed petitioner from service for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, is supported by competent and credible evidence.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS IS CORRECT IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY PETITIONER BASED ON MERE TECHNICALITIES

Hence, in accordance with the foregoing rules, if petitioner indeed received a copy of CSC Resolution No. 072196 dated November 26, 2007, denying her Motion for Reconsideration, on December 5, 2007, she had 15 days thereafter, or until December 20, 2007, to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.

However, petitioner filed instead a Petition for Certiorari on December 27, 2007, already 22 days after receipt of a copy of CSC Resolution No. 072196 dated November 26, 2007.

Sections 5, Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provide that final orders or resolutions of the CSC are appealable to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review

SEC. 5. How appeal taken. Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo. The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.

WHETHER OR NOT RULE 65 IS THE PROPER REMEDY

The Ruling

of

Supreme Court

The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 02103-MIN for being the wrong mode of appeal and for non-compliance with several other procedural requirements.

Section 50, Rule III of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the CSC plainly states that a party may elevate a decision of the Commission [CSC] before the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court.

The Case

In addition to being the wrong mode of appeal, the Court of Appeals also dismissed the Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 02103-MIN for petitioners failure to comply with the requirements for petitions under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly, the second paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46, of the same rules, which read:

SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements.

In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.

The consequence for non-compliance with any of such requirements is sheerly spelled out in the sixth paragraph of Rule 3, Section 46 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, to be as follows:

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

As a general rule, the findings of fact of the CSC and the Court of Appeals are accorded great weight.

Lower courts are in a better position to determine the truth of the matter in litigation, since the pieces of evidence are presented before them, and they are able to look into the credibility and the demeanor of the witnesses on the witness stand.

Furthermore, quasi-judicial bodies like the CSC are better-equipped in handling cases involving the employment status of employees as those in the Civil Service since it is within the field of their expertise. Factual findings of administrative agencies are generally held to be binding and final so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case.

It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before the lower court, tribunal or office. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.

The Petitioner Pagayanan Hadji-Sirad filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to:

1. Review and reversal of the Resolutions dated 18 January 2008 and 12 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals;

2. Challenge in her Petition before the Court of Appeals, affirming the Decision of CSC Regional Office (CSCRO) No. XII, finding petitioner guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and dismissing petitioner from service;

Rules of procedure are tools designed to promote efficiency and orderliness as well as to facilitate attainment of justice, such that strict adherence thereto is required. However, technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded, for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties right to an opportunity to be heard.

3. Challenge in her Petition before the Court of Appeals, the CSC Resolution No. 072196 dated 26 November 2007, denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Conclusion

Dishonesty has been defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray, or intent to violate the truth.

Under CSC Resolution 06-0538, dishonesty may be classified as serious, less serious or simple. In this case, Hadji-Sirad was charged with serious dishonesty, which necessarily entails the presence of the following circumstances:

1. The dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the government;

2. The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment;

3. The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets

Grave misconduct is defined as the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer coupled with the elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules.

Grave misconduct was committed when Hadji-Sirad let another person take the CS examination on her behalf. It signifies a willful intent to violate or disregard the rules of CSC regarding the examination.

ABOUT

In this case, Hadji-Sirad is an employee of Commission on Audit. As stated in one of the core values of COA:

G.R. No. 182267

PAGAYANAN R. HADJI-SIRAD

vs.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service deals with a demeanor of a public officer which “tarnished the image and integrity of his/her public office.

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service was committed because the acts of Hadji-Sirad tarnished the image of the COA-ARMM, as a trustworthy, respected and independent audit institution that is an enabling partner of government in ensuring a better life for every Filipino.

"Integrity. We discharge our mandate in adherence to moral and ethical principles and the highest degree of honesty, independence, objectivity and professionalism."

As public officials and employees, we have the duty of protecting not only our integrity but also that of the government. We owe it to the Filipino people to have integrity. It means we cannot be bribed, bought, swayed, coerced, or do something that does not adhere to the highest moral standards, just like in this case.

When we operate from integrity, we gain the trust of other people, especially those we work with closely.

We hope this case will set as an eye-opener for us, not only to work with integrity, but also to be accountable to the people at all times and discharge our duties with utmost responsibility, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.

PAGAYANAN R. HADJI-SIRAD

vs.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

CHARACTERS

Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial

to the Best Interest of the Service

Minita V. Chico-Nazario

Associate Justice

Supreme Court

August 28, 2009

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Respondent

PAGAYANAN R. HADJI-SIRAD

Petitioner

Minita V. Chico-Nazario

Associate Justice

ADELAIDA L. CASANGUAN

Witness

DICK U. YASA

Witness

References:

• G.R. No. 182267

The LAWPHiL Project, Arellano Law Foundation, https://www.lawphil.net/

• Determining administrative liability

http://www.manilatimes.net/determining-administrative-liability/348868/

• COA Core Values

https://www.coa.gov.ph/index.php/2013-06-19-13-06-03/core-values

G.R. No. 182267