THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 238059, June 08, 2020
TERESITA M. CAMSOL, PETITIONER, V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
ZALAMEDA, J.:
The facts of this case, as found by the CSC, are not in dispute:Finding a prima facie case, petitioner was formally charged with Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.6 She denied the charges in her Answer.7
Petitioner is a Forest technician II at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),-Community Environment Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Buguias,.Abatan, Buguias, Benguet.4
Records show that Camsol (petitioner) requested from the CSC-Cordillera Administrative Region (CSC-CAR) the authentication of her Career Service Professional Eligibility. Thus, she indicated in the Eligibility/Exam Records Request Form (ERRF) that she passed the Career Service Professional Examination (Computer-Assisted Test/CAT) on September 16, 2002 in Baguio City with a rating of 82.10.
It appears, however, from the Master List of Eligibles on file with the CSC-CAR that no Career Service Professional Examination, either Paper or Pencil Test (PPT) or CAT, was conducted on September 16, 2002 in Baguio City. Instead, it was discovered that Camsol took and failed the Career Service Professional Examination (CSPE) conducted on May 2, 2002 and October 17, 2002, where she obtained ratings of both 48.08 on both occasions.
Meanwhile, Camsol attributed the issuance of her alleged spurious Certificate of Eligibility (COE) from a certain Allan, who 'sweet talked' her into believing that the said COE was legitimate/authentic. That she personally received said COE from Allan, after she gave him one hundred pesos (P100.00). Allan allegedly asked for more money but she refused.5cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review of Teresita M. Camsol, Forest Technician II, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Community Environment Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Buguias, Abatan, Buguias, Benguet, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, Decision No. 16-0012 dated February 5, 2016 issued by the Civil Service Commission-Cordillera Administrative Region (CSC-CAR), Baguio City, which found her guilty of Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and imposed upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, except terminal/accrued leave benefits and personal contributions to the GSIS, if any, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking any civil service examinations and Resolution No. 16-00010 dated March 14, 2016, which denied her subsequent Motion for Reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.The CSC agreed that petitioner's possession of a spurious/fake Certificate of Eligibility (COE) sufficed to hold petitioner liable for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Petitioner's possession of a fake eligibility, in exchange for a fee, constituted violation or transgression of some rule and manifested corrupt behavior, making her liable for Grave Misconduct. The CSC likewise found petitioner liable for Serious Dishonesty as her act of securing the same for a fee tarnished the integrity, not only of the Commission, but the entire bureaucracy. Further, said act was prejudicial to the interest of the public service.11
Copies of this Decision shall be furnished the Commission on Audit-DENR and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), for their reference and appropriate action.10cralawlawlibrary
An act which included the procurement and/or use of fake/spurious civil service eligibility, the giving of assistance to ensure the commission or procurement of the same, cheating, collusion, impersonation, or any other anomalous act which amounts to any violation of the Civil Service examination, has been categorized as a grave offense of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty being grave offenses, the penalty of dismissal may be meted even for the first-time offenders.27 However, it is not lost to Us that under Section 48,28 Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, mitigating and aggravating circumstances may still be appreciated in the penalty to be imposed, with the disciplining authority having the discretion to consider these circumstances in the interest of substantial justice.
Very truly yours, (Sgd.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 9-33.
2 Id. at 35-46; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos of the Special Fifteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 80-86.
4 Id. at 80.
5 Id. at 90.
6 Id. at 66-67.
7 Id. at 82.
8 Id. at 72-78.
9 Id at 69-70.
10 Id. at 86.
11 Id. at 85.
12 Id. at 88-92.
13 Id. at 41.
14 Rules on the Administrative Offense of Dishonesty.
15Rollo, p. 41.
16 Id. at 43.
17 Id. at 45.
18 Id. at 9-33.
19 Id. at 19.
20 Id. at 13.
21 Id. at 19.
22 Id at 21.
23 Id. at 40.
24 Id at 14-15.
25Fajardo v. Corral, 813 Phil. 149-159 (2017).
26 709 Phil. 236-265 (2013).
27Office of the Ombudsman, et. al. v. Espina, 807 Phil. 529-555 (2017).
28 As found in Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 11-01502, promulgated on 08 November 2011. This has been repealed by the 2017 RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE (2017 RACCS), as per CSC Resolution No. 1701077, promulgated on 03 July 2017 and took effect on 17 August 2017, However, the previous RRACCS remains applicable to pending cases filed before its effectivity, provided it will not unduly prejudice substantive rights, in accordance with Section 124, Rule 23 of the 2017 RACCS.
29 In the case of Office of the Court Administrator v. Flores, (A.M. No. P-07-2366 [Resolution], 16 April 2009), the Court found Flores guilty of dishonesty and imposed upon her the penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay, taking into account her length of service and that it was her first offense during her employment in the judiciary. Indeed, the Court held that while dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable by dismissal even at the first instance, jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Court lowered the penalty of dismissal to suspension taking into account the presence of mitigating circumstances such as length of service in the government and being a first time offender.
In the case of Alfornon v. De los Santos, et. al., (G.R. No. 203657,11 July 2016), Alfornon, was found guilty of serious dishonesty because of a material misrepresentation in her PDS. However, finding that her outright dismissal from the service would be too harsh, she was only meted the penalty of suspension for six (6) months taking in consideration her continued service to the Municipality of Argao, Cebu since 2003.
In the case of Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary I, and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, (A.M. No. 2001-7-SC & 2001-8-SC, 22 July 2005, 464 SCRA 1) where therein respondents were found guilty of dishonesty, the Court, for humanitarian considerations, in addition to various mitigating circumstances in respondents' favor, meted out a penalty of six months suspension instead of imposing the most severe penalty of dismissal from service. In imposing a lower penalty, the court, for humanitarian considerations, took note of various mitigating circumstances in respondent's favor, to wit: (1) for respondent ANGELITA C. ESMERIO: her continued long years of service in the judiciary amounting to 38 years; her faithful observance of office rules and regulations from the time she submitted her explanation-letter up to the present; her acknowledgment of her infractions and feelings of remorse; her retirement on 31 May 2005; and her family circumstances (i.e., support of a 73-year old maiden aunt and a 7-year old adopted girl); and (2) for ELIZABETH L. TING: her continued long years of service in the judiciary amounting to 21 years; her acknowledgment of her infractions and feelings of remorse; the importance and complexity of the nature of her duties (i.e., the preparation of the drafts of the Minutes of the Agenda); the fact that she stays well beyond office hours in order to finish her duties; and her Performance Rating has always been "Very Satisfactory" and her total score of 42 points is the highest among the employees of the Third Division of the Court.
In the case of Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr. (A.M. No. P-99-1342, 20 September 2005, 470 SCRA 218), the penalty of dismissal was reduced by the Court to six months suspension without pay for the attendant equitable and humanitarian considerations therein: Norberto V. Doblada, Jr., had spent 34 years of his life in government service and that he was about to retire; this was the first time that he was found administratively liable per available record; Doblada, Jr., and his wife were suffering from various illnesses that required constant medication, and that they were relying on Doblada's retirement benefits to augment their finances and to meet their medical bills and expenses.
In Civil Service Commission v. Belagan (G.R. No. 132164, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA 578, 601), Allyson Belagan, who was charged with sexual harassment and found guilty of Grave Misconduct, was meted out the penalty of suspension from office without pay for one year, instead of the heavier penalty of dismissal, given his length of service, unblemished record in the past, and numerous awards.
In Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud (A.M. No. CA-05-20-P, 9 September 2005, 469 SCRA 439, 469-470), Cielito M. Salud, a Court of Appeals personnel, was found guilty of inefficiency and gross misconduct, punishable by dismissal from service even for the first time offenses. However, considering that Salud had not been previously charged nor administratively sanctioned, the Court instead imposed the penalty of suspension for one year and six months.
In De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza (A.M. No. P-03-1693, 17 March 2005, 453 SCRA 545, 574), sheriff Antonio O. Mendoza was charged with conniving with another in causing the issuance of an alias writ of execution and profiting on the rentals collected from the tenants of the subject property. Mendoza was subsequently found guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; but instead of imposing the penalty of dismissal, the Court meted out the penalty of suspension for one year without pay, it appearing that it was Mendoza's first offense.
In the case of Buntag v. Pana (G.R. No. 145564, 24 March 2006, 485 SCRA 302), the Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals and the Ombudsman when they took into consideration Corazon G. Buntag's length of service in the government and the fact that this was her first infraction. Thus, the penalty of dismissal for Falsification of Official Document was reduced to merely one year suspension.
In Re: Delayed Remittance of Collections of Teresita Lydia Odtuhan (445 Phil. 220 [2003]), a court legal researcher, Lydia Odtuhan of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City was found guilty of serious misconduct in office for failing to remit a P12,705.00 fund collection to the proper custodian for three years and doing so only after several demands or directives from the clerks of court and from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). For humanitarian reasons, the Court found dismissal from the service to be too harsh considering that Odtuhan subsequently remitted the entire amount and she was afflicted with ovarian cancer. She was imposed a fine P10,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
In Sarenas-Ochagabia v. Atty. Balmes Ocampos (466 Phil. 1 [2004]), Atty. Balmes Ocampos failed to file for his clients an appellants' brief and the necessary Manifestation and Motion with the Court of Appeals. The Court noted that for the said offense, it had imposed penalties ranging from reprimand, warning with fine, suspension and, in aggravated cases, disbarment. Owing to his advanced age, the Court imposed on Atty. Balmes Ocampos the penalty of suspension for three months with a warning that a repetition thereof will be dealt with more severely.
30See Rayos v. Hernandez, 558 Phil. 228-235 (2007).
31 777 Phil. 16-28(2016).
32Rollo, p. 25.
33 Id. at 120-123 (Personnel Data Sheet dated 18 January 2016).
34 Id. at 60 (Service Record), 120-123 (Personnel Data Sheet dated 18 January 2016).
35 Id. at 124 (Certification by CENR Officer Rabindranath P. Quilala, CESE).
36 Id. at 125 (Loyalty Award signed by PENR Officer Octavio B. Cuanso).
37 Id. at 126-132 (IPCR dated 8 February 2016 and Performance Evaluation Report for the rating period of 2 January to 30 June 2013).
38 Id at 120 (Personnel Data Sheet dated 18 January 2016).
39 Id at 25-26.
40Office of the Court Administrator v. Retired Judge Chavez, 815 Phil. 41-53 (2017).chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary