THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 200577, August 17, 2016
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. CAROLINA P. JUEN, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated July 8, 2011 and Resolution3 dated February 10, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 100240, setting aside the Resolution No. 0611834 dated July 12, 2006 and Resolution No. 0712095 dated June 22, 2007 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The Resolutions of the CSC affirmed the CSC Regional Office V's (CSCRO V) Order dated January 16, 2004, finding Carolina P. Juen (respondent), Budget Officer I, Municipality of Placer, Masbate, guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
A careful examination of the records clearly shows that the person whose picture was pasted on the [respondent's PDS and the person whose picture was pasted on the Picture Seat Plan for the [CSPE] given on February 13, 1997, using the name of [the respondent] are two different persons.The CSCRO V, thus, imposed the penalty of dismissal with all the accessory penalties attached thereto.18chanrobleslaw
On the other hand, [Respondent failed to explain her marked difference in physical appearance from the one who actually applied and took the December 20, 1996 [CSPE] under the name of [the respondent]. She even failed to appear before this Office when required to do so. Logically[, the r]espondent was not the person who actually applied and took the December 20, 1996 [CSPE] but caused someone to take it for and in her behalf.17chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Commission carefully evaluated the evidence on record and is fully convinced that the person appearing in the pictures attached to the PSP during the [CSPE] held on December 20, 1996, and the PDS on one hand, are not one and the same. This is so, despite the fact that the two are different pictures taken at different times, with the person wearing different hairstyles and in the photo pasted on the PDS was groomed with cosmetics. Moreover, the loops and strokes of the handwriting and signatures on the two documents are starkly different. It is, thus, unmistakable that said signatures belong to different persons. These discrepancies are conclusive that impersonation was committed, an act which is inimical to the integrity and credibility of Civil Service Examinations.25cralawredchanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe CSC, thus, affirmed the ruling of the CSCRO V finding substantial evidence to hold the respondent guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.26chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of [the respondent] is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, [CSC] Resolution No. 06-1183 dated July 12, 2006, which affirmed the [CSCRO V] Order dated January 16, 2004 finding her guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service with the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification from entering the government service and from taking future Civil Service examinations, forfeiture of retirement benefits and cancellation of Civil Service eligibility, STANDS.29chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe respondent, thus, filed an appeal30 before the CA.
The [respondent] cannot be faulted for her being absence [sic] during the hearings set by the [CSCRO V]. It is of record that notice for the first hearing set on September 4, 2003 was received on the same day, while the notice for the second hearing was received by [the respondent] on November 11, 2003, or only two days before the hearing. [The respondent's] counsel was in Cebu City and the hearing was to be conducted in Legaspi City, it would be extremely unreasonable to expect [the respondent's] attendance. Evidently, [the respondent] was not given enough time to be present and her counsel before the [CSCRO V]. She was unlawfully deprived of her right to adduce evidence for her defense.35 (Citations omitted)The CA stated that, pursuant to the Court's ruling in Ang Tibay and National Worker's Brotherhood v. The Court of Industrial Relations and National Labor Union, Inc.36 and Abella, Jr. v. CSC,37 the CSCRO V should have given the respondent another opportunity to present her evidence. Since the CSCRO V hastily admitted the evidence against the respondent, the documentary evidence which it based its findings on cannot be relied upon.38 It, thus, set aside Resolutions No. 061183 and 071209 of the CSC.
The death of the respondent in an administrative case, as a rule, does not preclude a finding of administrative liability. The recognized exceptions to this rule are: first, when the respondent has not been heard and continuation of the proceedings would deny him of his right to due process; second, where exceptional circumstances exist in the case leading to equitable and humanitarian considerations; and third, when the kind of penalty imposed or imposable would render the proceedings useless. x x x.45 (Citation omitted and italics in the original)Otherwise stated, the death of the respondent in an administrative case precludes the finding of administrative liability when: a) due process may be subverted; b) on equitable and humanitarian reasons; and c) the penalty imposed would render the proceedings useless. The Court finds that the first exception applies.
The [respondent] cannot be faulted for her absence during the hearings set by the [CSCRO V]. It is of record that notice for the first hearing set on September 4, 2003 was received in the same day, while the notice for the second hearing was received by [the respondent] on November 11, 2003, or only two days before the hearing. [The respondent's] counsel was in Cebu City and the hearing was to be conducted in Legaspi City, it would be extremely unreasonable to expect [the respondent's] attendance. Evidently, [the respondent] was not given enough time to be present and her counsel before the [CSCRO V]. She was unlawfully deprived of her right to adduce evidence for her defense.Since the case against the respondent was dismissed by the CA on the lack of due process, the Court finds it proper to dismiss the present administrative case against the deceased under the circumstances since she can no longer defend herself.
x x x x
The filing of a motion for reconsideration and appeal is not a substitute to deprive the [respondent] of her right to due process. The opportunity to adduce evidence is essential in the administrative process, as decisions must be rendered on the evidence presented, either in the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. x x x.47 (Citations omitted)
Endnotes:
* Additional Member per Raffle dated September 2, 2015 vice Associate Justice Frarcis H. Jardeleza. On leave.
1Rollo, pp. 26-54.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Socorro B. Inting concurring; id. at 11-19.
3 Id. at 21-24.
4 Penned by Commissioner Cesar D. Buenaflor, with Chairman Karina Constantino-David and Commissioner Mary Ann Z. Femandez-Mendoza concurring; id. at 134-143.
5 Id. at 148-151.
6 Id. at 100. Received by the CSCRO V on December 16, 2002.
7 Id. at 105.
8 Id. at 106.
9 Id. at 101-102.
10 Id. at 103.
11 Id. at 106-107.
12 Id. at 108-110.
13 Id. at 111.
14 Id. at 112.
15 Id. at 114.
16 Id. at 114-115.
17 Id. at 115.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 121-124.
20 Id. at 125-133.
21 Id. at 134-143.
22 Id. at 139.
23 Id. at 140.
24 Id.
25cralawred Id. at 141.
26 Id. at 143.
27 Id. at 144-147.
28 Id. at 148-151.
29 Id. at 151.
30 Id. at 152-162.
31 Id. at 15.
32 Id. at 15-16.
33 Id. at 16.
34 Id. at 11-19.
35 Id. at 18.
36 69 Phil. 635 (1940).
37 485 Phil. 182 (2004).
38Rollo, p. 19.
39 Id. at 73-78.
40 Id. at 21-24.
41 Id. at 28-29.
42 721 Phil. 124 (2013).
43 Id. at 136
44 619 Phil. 3 (2009).
45 Id. at 32.
46Department of Health v. Camposano, 496 Phil. 886, 898-899 (2005).
47Rollo, p. 18.