THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 238077, March 17, 2021
TEDDY L. PANARIGAN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION - REGIONAL OFFICE (CSCRO) NO. III, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
WHEREFORE, the petition for review of Teddy L. Panarigan, Clerk II, National Food Authority, Bulacan, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated May 28, 2012 of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. III, San Fernando City, Pampanga, finding Panarigan guilty of Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Document and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, is MODIFIED as Panarigan is hereby found GUILTY of two (2) counts of Serious Dishonesty. Further, the imposition of the penalty on Panarigan of dismissal from the service with all the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of civil service eligibility, bar from taking any Civil Service examination, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office, is AFFIRMED.18The CSC ruled that the evidence showed that another person impersonated Panarigan when he filled-out the Application Form (AF) to take the July 21, 2002 CSPE. Also, the said impersonator accomplished the PSP in the name of Panarigan. Then to elude suspicion from the Processor of the AF, as well as the Supervising Examiner, Room Examiner and Room Proctor, on the day of the disputed examination, the impersonator submitted his own picture in the box provided and affixed the supposed signature of Panarigan.19 Thus, the CSC declared that Panarigan's acts in (1) employing another person to take the CSPE for and in his behalf, and (2) indicating in his PDS that he passed the July 21, 2002 CSPE conducted in Malolos, Bulacan were two acts or counts of Serious Dishonesty and punishable by dismissal from the service.20
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision No. 120827 promulgated on November 26, 2012 of the Civil Service Commission finding petitioner Teddy L. Panarigan guilty of two (2) counts of Serious Dishonesty is MODIFIED. Petitioner is declared GUILTY of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Falsification of Official Document and meted the penalty of dismissal from the service including its accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, disqualification from taking future civil service examinations and perpetual disqualification from re-entering the government service.The CA ruled that there was substantial evidence that Panarigan caused another person to take the CSPE on July 21, 2002 in Malolos, Bulacan. As shown by the records, Panarigan was not the one who took the examination on July 21, 2002 because the picture in the PSP taken during the examination belonged to another person. The CA stated that Panarigan admitted the discrepancy in his records and raised the defense that somebody was out there to remove him from his current position. Save for bare allegations, Panarigan failed to substantiate his claim that he was a victim of a frame-up.24
SO ORDERED.23
SEC. 39. The direct evidence for the complainant and the respondent consists of the sworn statement and documents submitted in support of the complaint or answer as the case may be, without prejudice to the presentation of additional evidence deemed necessary but was unavailable at the time of the filing of the complaint and the answer upon which the cross-examination, by the respondent and the complainant respectively, shall be based. Following the cross examination, there may be re-direct or re-cross examination.In Civil Service Commission v. Colanggo,31 the Court ruled that the CSC, in investigating complaints against civil servants, is not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable in judicial proceedings. In the said case, the Court held that the CSC correctly appreciated the photocopies of the Philippine Board Examination for Teachers application form, PSP and PDS (though not duly authenticated) in determining whether there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges against respondent. Respondent never objected to the veracity of their contents, but merely disputed their admissibility on the ground that they were not authenticated.
Either party may avail himself of the services of counsel and may require the attendance of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence in his favor through the compulsory process of subpoena or subpoena duces tecum.
The investigation shall be conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the truth without necessarily adhering to technical rules applicable in judicial proceedings. It shall be conducted by the disciplining authority concerned or his authorized representatives.30 (Emphasis supplied)
It should be stressed that as a matter of procedure, the room examiners assigned to supervise the conduct of a Civil Service examination closely examine the pictures submitted and affixed on the Picture Seat Plan. x x x The examiners carefully compare the appearance of each of the examinees with the person in the picture submitted and affixed on the PSP. In cases where the examinee does not look like the person in the picture submitted and attached on the PSP, the examiner will not allow the said person to take the examination.Also, in the case of Tan v. Civil Service Commission,35 the Court ruled that absent any proof of mistake, malice, or motive on the part of the examination proctor, it cannot be said that the examination proctor may have inadvertently placed the photo of a different person on the PSP. Similarly, there is also no need to present the room examiners to establish the authenticity and due execution of the PSP. The PSP is a public document which is admissible in evidence without need of proof of its authenticity and due execution.36
It is undisputed that the photos appearing in the Personal Data Sheet and the Picture Seat Plan for the July 21, 2002 Career Service Professional Examination though both named Teddy L. Panarigan are not that of the same person. While the respondent admits accomplishing the PDS and attaching his photo therein, he insinuates that the custodian of the PSP tampered the same, thus a different photo appears therein.Undoubtedly, another person, who matched the photo in the PSP, actually signed the AF and took the CSPE on July 21, 2002 in Panarigan's name. Thus, Panarigan clearly committed Serious Dishonesty in declaring in his September 17, 2002 PDS that he took and passed the civil service examination.
x x x
The respondent's allegation that the exam records were tampered is unsubstantiated; thus, it deserves no credence. It is important to note that prior to the examination, the examinee is required to fill out an application form and affix his signature and to attach his photo thereon after which the examinee is given an examination application receipt also with photo. The examination application receipt of one representing himself to be Teddy Panarigan which is attached to the anonymous complaint reveals a photo similar to that in the PSP. That only proves that the person who filed the application for and who actually took the Career Service Professional Exam on July 21, 2002 was one and the same using the name Teddy Panarigan. That disproves the allegation that the examination records were tampered by its custodian.
x x x
Clearly, the person who appeared and took the CS examination on July 21, 2002 in Malolos, Bulacan was the person whose photo appears in the PSP and not the real Teddy L. Panarigan whose photo appears in the PDS accomplished on September 17, 2002. Thus, the real Teddy L. Panarigan misrepresented when he entered in his PDS that he took and passed the CSC Examination on July 21, 2002. x x x.37
SEC. 3. The presence of any one or the following attendant circumstances in the commission or the dishonest act would constitute the offense of Serious Dishonesty:In the present case, Panarigan falsified his PDS by misrepresenting that he has a civil service eligibility and that he passed the July 21, 2002 CSPE. Likewise, Panarigan conspired with another person to impersonate him and take the July 21, 2002 CSPE on his behalf. Thus, from the time he applied as Clerk II at the NFA, Panarigan greatly benefited from the supposed civil service eligibility result and had been promoted to a permanent position. Evidently, Panarigan committed two separate acts or counts of Serious Dishonesty under Sections 3(e) and (g) of CSC Resolution No. 06-0538.
x x x
e. The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification or official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment.
x x x
g. 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.
Any act which includes the fraudulent procurement and/or use of fake/spurious civil service eligibility, the giving of assistance to ensure the commission or procurement of the same, or any other act which amounts to violation of the integrity of [the] Civil Service examinations, possession of fake Civil Service eligibility and other similar acts shall be categorized as a grave offense of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, as the case may be, and shall be penalized in accordance with the approved Schedule of Penalties.41Also, under Section 46 of CSC Resolution No. 1101502,42 or the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the offenses of Serious Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Document, and Grave Misconduct are all punishable by the penalty of dismissal from the service.43 Further, under Section 50 of the same Rule, if respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 11-27.
2 Id. at 29-35. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with then Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, concurring.
3 Id. at 37-38.
4 Id. at 114-120.
5 Id. at 61.
6 Id. at 57.
7 Id. at 56.
8 Id. at 67-68.
9 Id. at 66.
10 Id. at 69-71.
11 Id. at 86.
12 Id. at 87.
13 Id. at 37-38.
14 Id. at 84-93.
15 Id. at 121-123.
16 Id. at 99-101.
17 Supra note 4.
18Rollo, p. 120.
19 Id. at 119.
20 Id. at 119-120.
21 Id. at 126-129.
22 Supra note 2.
23Rollo, p. 34.
24 Id. at 53.
25 Supra note 3.
26Civil Service Commission v. Dampilag, G.R. No. 238774, June 10, 2020.
27Hadji-Sirad v. Civil Service Commission, 614 Phil. 119, 137 (2009).
28Rollo, p. 59.
29 CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 dated August 31, 1999.
30 See Civil Service Commission v. Colanggo, 576 Phil. 594, 598-599 (2008).
31 Id.
32Donato, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, 543 Phil. 731, 744-745 (2007).
33Hadji-Sirad v. Civil Service Commission, supra note 27.
34 422 Phil. 236, 245 (2001).
35 G.R. No. 240153, September 10, 2018.
36Office of the Court Administrator v. Bermejo, 572 Phil. 6, 12 (2008).
37Rollo, pp. 89-91.
38Civil Service Commission v. Cayobit, 457 Phil. 452, 460 (2003).
39Donato, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, supra note 32.
40Civil Service v. Vergel de Dios, 753 Phil. 240 (2015).
41 <https://www.csguide.org/items/show/12> (visited February 8, 2021).
42 Promulgated on November 8, 2011.
43 SEC. 46. Classification of Offenses. - x x x
A. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by dismissal from the service:
1. Serious Dishonesty;
x x x
3. Grave Misconduct;
x x x
6. Falsification official document[.]
44 Supra note 26.
45 See Cabanatan v. Molina, 421 Phil. 664 (2001). Pursuant to Sec. 11, paragraph 1 of Rule 140, which states:
SEC. 11. Sanctions. - A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits[.] x x x (Emphasis supplied) cralawredlibrary