THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 203536, February 04, 2015 ]CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. MARIA RIZA G. VERGEL DE DIOS +
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA RIZA G. VERGEL DE DIOS, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. MARIA RIZA G. VERGEL DE DIOS +
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA RIZA G. VERGEL DE DIOS, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Amended Decision[1] dated March 21, 2012 and Resolution[2] dated September 17, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 114040. The CA
set aside its Decision[3] dated October 20, 2011 which upheld the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissing respondent Maria Riza G. Vergel de Dios from the service.
The facts follow.
The CSC conducted an investigation after receiving an anonymous complaint that several employees of San Rafael Water District employed a fixer to pass the CSC's Career Service Professional Examination on November 17, 2000. In the course of the investigation, CSC Director Aurora C. De Leon received a phone call implicating respondent in the alleged irregularity. Director De Leon's verification with the Integrated Records Management Office of the Central Office of the CSC revealed that there were discrepancies in the signatures and pictures of the respondent in her personal data sheets and on the picture seat plan used for said examination. Thus, respondent was formally charged for dishonesty, grave misconduct, falsification of official documents and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
In her defense, respondent testified that she was the one who took the examination. Loline[4] Padilla testified that she accompanied respondent when she took the examination. Padilla admitted however that she never saw respondent take the examination.
In its Decision[5] dated August 26, 2008, the CSC Regional Office No. III found respondent guilty of serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of official documents, and dismissed her from the service. The CSC Regional Office found that the picture pasted and the signature appearing on the picture seat plan of the Career Service Professional Examination held at the CSC Central Office on November 17, 2000 is different from the pictures pasted and signatures appearing on respondent's personal data sheet accomplished on March 13, 2001 and personal data sheet accomplished on July 14, 2006.[6] Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied.
The CSC dismissed respondent's appeal in its Resolution No. 091721[7] dated December 11, 2009. The dispositive portion thereof provides:
The CSC agreed with its Regional Office that (1) the Vergel de Dios in the picture seat plan is not the same Vergel de Dios whose picture is pasted in the personal data sheet and (2) the signatures appearing therein pertain to different individuals.[9] The CSC added:
In its Resolution No. 100728[11] dated April 12, 2010, the CSC denied respondent's motion for reconsideration.
In its Decision dated October 20, 2011, the CA dismissed respondent's petition for review and agreed with the findings of the CSC. The fallo of the CA decision reads:
On reconsideration, the CA issued the assailed Amended Decision dated March 21, 2012 which set aside its Decision dated October 20, 2011 and reversed the CSC resolutions, to wit:
While the CA recognized the CSC's strict procedures to ensure the integrity of its examinations, the CA said that there is no showing that those procedures were followed when the purported impersonation subject of this case happened. The CA noted that the room examiners were not presented to prove that the examination procedures were strictly implemented. Thus, the CA held that the discrepancy in respondent's signatures and pictures on the personal data sheets and picture seat plan can be the result of a simple mix up.[14]
The assailed Resolution dated September 17, 2012 denied the CSC's motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition with the sole assignment of error:
The main issue is whether the CA erred in reversing the ruling of the CSC on the ground that the discrepancies in respondent's pictures and signatures in the picture seat plan and personal data sheets were due to a possible mix up.
Petitioner argues that the presentation of the room examiners is not required to prove the observance of the procedure in preparing the picture seat plan and in implementing the civil service examination because of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of public officers. Petitioner also argues that the personal data sheet and picture seat plan are public documents which are admissible in evidence without proof of authenticity and due execution thereof. Petitioner avers that the discrepancy in the signature and picture of the respondent in her personal data sheet and picture seat plan is tantamount to the commission of misrepresentation in the personal data sheet and fraudulent procurement of civil service eligibility.
Respondent counters that despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of public officers, the room examiners must still be presented to prove that the examination procedures were complied with. Respondent asserts that the issuance of her Certificate of Eligibility is also presumed regular.
The petition is meritorious.
We reverse the ruling of the CA that the discrepancies in respondent's signatures and pictures on the personal data sheets and picture seat plan can be the result of a simple mix up. This ruling is pure speculation and is belied by the evidence on record.
Written on the picture seat plan is the name of respondent in bold letters.[16] On top of it is her purported signature. Notably, respondent said that she was the one who took the examination. If we believe her, then she was the one who wrote her name in bold letters and put the signature on top of it. Thus, there was no mix up in her signature on the picture seat plan.
Upon comparison of respondent's signatures, the CSC found that respondent's signature on the picture seat plan is different from her signatures on her personal data sheets. We also examined respondent's signatures on the picture seat plan and personal data sheet[17] and we agree with the CSC that the signatures are different. We also agree with the CSC that the pictures of respondent on the picture seat plan and personal data sheets are different. If only to stress, we again quote the finding of the CSC:
As we said in Office of the Court Administrator v. Bermejo[19]:
We thus entertain no doubt that someone impersonated respondent and took the examination for her.
We also agree with petitioner that the presentation of the room examiners is not required to prove the observance of the procedure in preparing the picture seat plan and in implementing the civil service examination. More so in this case where the supposed mix up in the picture seat plan was proven wrong by the records. We stress that CSC examiners enjoy a presumption of regularity in the administration of the civil service examination. We held in Donato, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission[20] that:
In the present case, respondent failed to controvert aforesaid presumption. Thus, the CSC examiners are conclusively deemed to have regularly performed their duties in relation to the administration of the civil service examination.
Similarly, there is also no need to present the room examiners to establish the authenticity and due execution of the picture seat plan. The picture seat plan is a public document which is admissible in evidence without need of proof of its authenticity and due execution.[21] Pertinently, Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that "[d]ocuments consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated." As a public document, the picture seat plan need not be identified or presented by the custodian thereof in order to be admissible in evidence.[22] In Antillon v. Barcelon,[23] we explained the legislative policy behind the admissibility of public documents, to wit: "[w]ere there no exception for official statements, hosts of officials would be found devoting the greater part of their time to attending as witnesses in the court or delivering their depositions before an officer."
Respondent committed serious dishonesty[24] when she declared in her personal data sheet that she took and passed the civil service examination on November 17, 2000. The evidence at hand also disproved her testimony that she herself took the examination. In Advincula v. Dicen,[25] we referred to the personal data sheet as the repository of all relevant information about any government employee or official. Thus, we declared that concealment of any information therein warrants the imposition of administrative penalty. Specifically, in De Guzman v. Delos Santos,[26] we ruled that the making of an untruthful statement in the personal data sheet amounts to dishonesty and falsification of official document, which warrant dismissal from service upon commission of the first offense.
Civil service rules also provide that 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 civil service examinations is to be categorized as grave offense of dishonesty, grave misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[27]
Respondent must therefore be held administratively liable for serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of official document in view of her misrepresentation in the personal data sheet and the commission of fraud in connection with the civil service examination on November 17, 2000.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Amended Decision dated March 21, 2012 and Resolution dated September 17, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114040 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution No. 091721 dated December 11, 2009 and Resolution No. 100728 dated April 12, 2010 of the Civil Service Commission are REINSTATED and UPHELD.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Del Castillo,* and Reyes, JJ., concur.
N O T I C E OF J U D G M E N T
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on ___February 4, 2015___ a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on February 18, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated January 5, 2015.
[1] Rollo, pp. 39-44. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
[2] Id. at 46-48.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 157-170.
[4] Also referred to as Lolita in some parts of the records.
[5] CA rollo, pp. 33-43.
[6] Id. at 39.
[7] Id. at 72-80.
[8] Id. at 80.
[9] Id. at 79.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 86-91.
[12] Id. at 169-170.
[13] Rollo, p. 43.
[14] Id. at 40-42.
[15] Id. at 18.
[16] Id. at 83.
[17] Id. at 84.
[18] Supra note 10.
[19] 572 Phil. 6, 13 (2008).
[20] 543 Phil. 731, 744-745 (2007).
[21] Office of the Court Administrator v. Bermejo, supra note 19, at 12.
[22] See Donato, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, supra note 20, at 744.
[23] 37 Phil. 148, 151 (1917).
[24] See Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, 450 Phil. 59, 68 (2003).
[25] 497 Phil. 979, 990 (2005).
[26] 442 Phil. 428, 436 (2002).
[27] Paragraph 1 of Memorandum Circular No. 08, s. 1990 reads:
The facts follow.
The CSC conducted an investigation after receiving an anonymous complaint that several employees of San Rafael Water District employed a fixer to pass the CSC's Career Service Professional Examination on November 17, 2000. In the course of the investigation, CSC Director Aurora C. De Leon received a phone call implicating respondent in the alleged irregularity. Director De Leon's verification with the Integrated Records Management Office of the Central Office of the CSC revealed that there were discrepancies in the signatures and pictures of the respondent in her personal data sheets and on the picture seat plan used for said examination. Thus, respondent was formally charged for dishonesty, grave misconduct, falsification of official documents and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
In her defense, respondent testified that she was the one who took the examination. Loline[4] Padilla testified that she accompanied respondent when she took the examination. Padilla admitted however that she never saw respondent take the examination.
In its Decision[5] dated August 26, 2008, the CSC Regional Office No. III found respondent guilty of serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of official documents, and dismissed her from the service. The CSC Regional Office found that the picture pasted and the signature appearing on the picture seat plan of the Career Service Professional Examination held at the CSC Central Office on November 17, 2000 is different from the pictures pasted and signatures appearing on respondent's personal data sheet accomplished on March 13, 2001 and personal data sheet accomplished on July 14, 2006.[6] Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied.
The CSC dismissed respondent's appeal in its Resolution No. 091721[7] dated December 11, 2009. The dispositive portion thereof provides:
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Maria Riza G. Vergel de Dios, former Public Relations Officer A, San Rafael Water District, San Rafael, Bulacan, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated August 26, 2008 rendered by the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. III, San Fernando City, Pampanga finding her guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Falsification of Official Document and imposing upon her 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, is hereby AFFIRMED.[8]
The CSC agreed with its Regional Office that (1) the Vergel de Dios in the picture seat plan is not the same Vergel de Dios whose picture is pasted in the personal data sheet and (2) the signatures appearing therein pertain to different individuals.[9] The CSC added:
The submitted documents show that the picture of Vergel de Dios as affixed in the [personal data sheet] is obviously not the Maria Riza G. Vergel de Dios whose picture appears on the [picture seat plan]. This may be seen in the discrepancies in her facial features specifically the size of her head, the prominence of the forehead, shape of her eyebrows, the difference of the full-face view, the projection of the nose, the round shape of the face and the forehead, among others. Moreover, the signatures of the respondent as affixed in the Picture Seat Plan (PSP) reflects a glaring difference to the signature affixed in her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) accomplished on February 27, 2001. Such difference in the manner by which the respective signatures were done clearly shows that they were made by two different persons.[10]
In its Resolution No. 100728[11] dated April 12, 2010, the CSC denied respondent's motion for reconsideration.
In its Decision dated October 20, 2011, the CA dismissed respondent's petition for review and agreed with the findings of the CSC. The fallo of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Resolution Nos. 091721 and 100728 dated 11 December 2009 and 12 April 2010, respectively, of the Civil Service Commission are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[12]
On reconsideration, the CA issued the assailed Amended Decision dated March 21, 2012 which set aside its Decision dated October 20, 2011 and reversed the CSC resolutions, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the earlier Decision of this Court dated 20 October 2011 is hereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered GRANTING the instant petition. Resolution No. 091721 dated 11 December 2009 and Resolution No. 100728, both issued by the Civil Service Commission, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.[13]
While the CA recognized the CSC's strict procedures to ensure the integrity of its examinations, the CA said that there is no showing that those procedures were followed when the purported impersonation subject of this case happened. The CA noted that the room examiners were not presented to prove that the examination procedures were strictly implemented. Thus, the CA held that the discrepancy in respondent's signatures and pictures on the personal data sheets and picture seat plan can be the result of a simple mix up.[14]
The assailed Resolution dated September 17, 2012 denied the CSC's motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition with the sole assignment of error:
x x x THE x x x COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT x x x.[15]
The main issue is whether the CA erred in reversing the ruling of the CSC on the ground that the discrepancies in respondent's pictures and signatures in the picture seat plan and personal data sheets were due to a possible mix up.
Petitioner argues that the presentation of the room examiners is not required to prove the observance of the procedure in preparing the picture seat plan and in implementing the civil service examination because of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of public officers. Petitioner also argues that the personal data sheet and picture seat plan are public documents which are admissible in evidence without proof of authenticity and due execution thereof. Petitioner avers that the discrepancy in the signature and picture of the respondent in her personal data sheet and picture seat plan is tantamount to the commission of misrepresentation in the personal data sheet and fraudulent procurement of civil service eligibility.
Respondent counters that despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of public officers, the room examiners must still be presented to prove that the examination procedures were complied with. Respondent asserts that the issuance of her Certificate of Eligibility is also presumed regular.
The petition is meritorious.
We reverse the ruling of the CA that the discrepancies in respondent's signatures and pictures on the personal data sheets and picture seat plan can be the result of a simple mix up. This ruling is pure speculation and is belied by the evidence on record.
Written on the picture seat plan is the name of respondent in bold letters.[16] On top of it is her purported signature. Notably, respondent said that she was the one who took the examination. If we believe her, then she was the one who wrote her name in bold letters and put the signature on top of it. Thus, there was no mix up in her signature on the picture seat plan.
Upon comparison of respondent's signatures, the CSC found that respondent's signature on the picture seat plan is different from her signatures on her personal data sheets. We also examined respondent's signatures on the picture seat plan and personal data sheet[17] and we agree with the CSC that the signatures are different. We also agree with the CSC that the pictures of respondent on the picture seat plan and personal data sheets are different. If only to stress, we again quote the finding of the CSC:
The submitted documents show that the picture of Vergel de Dios as affixed in the [personal data sheet] is obviously not the Maria Riza G. Vergel de Dios whose picture appears on the [picture seat plan]. This may be seen in the discrepancies in her facial features specifically the size of her head, the prominence of the forehead, shape of her eyebrows, the difference of the full-face view, the projection of the nose, the round shape of the face and the forehead, among others. Moreover, the signatures of the respondent as affixed in the Picture Seat Plan (PSP) reflects a glaring difference to the signature affixed in her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) accomplished on February 27, 2001. Such difference in the manner by which the respective signatures were done clearly shows that they were made by two different persons.[18]
As we said in Office of the Court Administrator v. Bermejo[19]:
It is difficult to believe that respondent could not have noticed that her picture was put on top of a different name and that her name was accompanied by the picture of another person. There was a space provided for the signature of the examinee. Thus, respondent could not have missed that she was signing if indeed she was signing her own name the box with a different picture. She proffers no sufficient explanation for this discrepancy.
We thus entertain no doubt that someone impersonated respondent and took the examination for her.
We also agree with petitioner that the presentation of the room examiners is not required to prove the observance of the procedure in preparing the picture seat plan and in implementing the civil service examination. More so in this case where the supposed mix up in the picture seat plan was proven wrong by the records. We stress that CSC examiners enjoy a presumption of regularity in the administration of the civil service examination. We held in Donato, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission[20] that:
x x x Those government employees who prepared the [picture seat plan] and who supervised the conduct of the Career Service Sub-Professional Examination on August 5, 1990, enjoy the presumption that they regularly performed their duties and this presumption cannot be disputed by mere conjectures and speculations.
In the present case, respondent failed to controvert aforesaid presumption. Thus, the CSC examiners are conclusively deemed to have regularly performed their duties in relation to the administration of the civil service examination.
Similarly, there is also no need to present the room examiners to establish the authenticity and due execution of the picture seat plan. The picture seat plan is a public document which is admissible in evidence without need of proof of its authenticity and due execution.[21] Pertinently, Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that "[d]ocuments consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated." As a public document, the picture seat plan need not be identified or presented by the custodian thereof in order to be admissible in evidence.[22] In Antillon v. Barcelon,[23] we explained the legislative policy behind the admissibility of public documents, to wit: "[w]ere there no exception for official statements, hosts of officials would be found devoting the greater part of their time to attending as witnesses in the court or delivering their depositions before an officer."
Respondent committed serious dishonesty[24] when she declared in her personal data sheet that she took and passed the civil service examination on November 17, 2000. The evidence at hand also disproved her testimony that she herself took the examination. In Advincula v. Dicen,[25] we referred to the personal data sheet as the repository of all relevant information about any government employee or official. Thus, we declared that concealment of any information therein warrants the imposition of administrative penalty. Specifically, in De Guzman v. Delos Santos,[26] we ruled that the making of an untruthful statement in the personal data sheet amounts to dishonesty and falsification of official document, which warrant dismissal from service upon commission of the first offense.
Civil service rules also provide that 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 civil service examinations is to be categorized as grave offense of dishonesty, grave misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[27]
Respondent must therefore be held administratively liable for serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of official document in view of her misrepresentation in the personal data sheet and the commission of fraud in connection with the civil service examination on November 17, 2000.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Amended Decision dated March 21, 2012 and Resolution dated September 17, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114040 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution No. 091721 dated December 11, 2009 and Resolution No. 100728 dated April 12, 2010 of the Civil Service Commission are REINSTATED and UPHELD.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Del Castillo,* and Reyes, JJ., concur.
February 18, 2015
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on ___February 4, 2015___ a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on February 18, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
(SGD)
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated January 5, 2015.
[1] Rollo, pp. 39-44. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
[2] Id. at 46-48.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 157-170.
[4] Also referred to as Lolita in some parts of the records.
[5] CA rollo, pp. 33-43.
[6] Id. at 39.
[7] Id. at 72-80.
[8] Id. at 80.
[9] Id. at 79.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 86-91.
[12] Id. at 169-170.
[13] Rollo, p. 43.
[14] Id. at 40-42.
[15] Id. at 18.
[16] Id. at 83.
[17] Id. at 84.
[18] Supra note 10.
[19] 572 Phil. 6, 13 (2008).
[20] 543 Phil. 731, 744-745 (2007).
[21] Office of the Court Administrator v. Bermejo, supra note 19, at 12.
[22] See Donato, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, supra note 20, at 744.
[23] 37 Phil. 148, 151 (1917).
[24] See Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, 450 Phil. 59, 68 (2003).
[25] 497 Phil. 979, 990 (2005).
[26] 442 Phil. 428, 436 (2002).
[27] Paragraph 1 of Memorandum Circular No. 08, s. 1990 reads:
1. 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 civil service examinations, possession of fake civil service eligibility and other similar act 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.