THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230308. June 7, 2017.]
MARIO S. AQUINO, petitioner,vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and its CSC REGIONAL OFFICE XI, DAVAO CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 7, 2017, which reads as follows: AScHCD
"G.R. No. 230308 (Mario S. Aquino vs. Civil Service Commission and its CSC Regional Office XI, Davao City). — The Court INFORMS petitioner that he or his authorized representative may claim from the Cash Disbursement and Collection Division of this Court the excess payment of the prescribed legal fees in the amount of P470.00 under O.R. No. 0173617 dated March 23, 2017.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated July 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and its Resolution dated January 12, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 06091-MIN. The appellate court affirmed the Decision dated August 27, 2013 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and its Resolution dated February 25, 2014 which, in turn, sustained the Decision dated January 17, 2012 of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. XI, Davao City.
The Facts
Sometime in the year 2003, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Region XI, Davao City claimed that Special Order (S.O.) No. 211-0641, s. 1991 issued in favor of petitioner Mario S. Aquino is not authentic and that petitioner's name was not among those reflected in the promotional reports submitted by the International Harvardian University (IHU), Davao City. 2 As a result, the CHED Director filed a complaint before the Department of Education (DepEd) Region No. XI and the CSCRO No. XI, both in Davao City. The DepEd Region No. XI and the CSCRO No. XI conducted an investigation pertaining to said complaint and petitioner was then required to explain the accusations against him.
In a letter dated February 10, 2003, Ms. Eloisa W. Paderanga (Paderanga), the then Regional Director of the CHED, stated that petitioner applied for a certification, verification and authentication of his school records sometime in 2002. However, upon perusal of petitioner's school records, the CHED found out that his supposed S.O. No. 211-0641, s. 1991 dated August 4, 1991 is not authentic. Records reveal that the same was issued in favor of Cristela Dalen, Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) graduate of IHU in October 1990 and the said S.O. was dated August 6, 1991 and not August 4, 1991. His Transcript of Records (TOR) was likewise verified and it was also revealed that his name was not among those reflected in the period he was supposedly enrolled. 3
In his letter dated February 28, 2003, petitioner stated that S.O. No. 211-0641 and the TOR in question were issued by the IHU Registrar's Office upon his request.
On June 7, 2004, the DepEd Region No. XI dismissed the complaint for the reason that the questioned TOR and S.O. No. 211-0641 were authentic and signed by Dr. Rodulph U. Paras Jr. (Dr. Paras, Jr.), the CHED Assistant Chief/Officer-in-Charge. The DepEd also ruled that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the petitioner's involvement in the alleged irregularities in the issuance of Certification, Authentication and Verification of his scholastic records. 4
Paderanga issued another letter dated April 24, 2003 addressed to the CSCRO No. XI stating that:
1. Mr. Aquino's Special Order for the BEED course is fake. He is not the real holder of Special Order No. 211-0641, s. 1991 dated August 4, 1991;
2. This Office issued Special Order No. 211-0641, s. 1991 dated August 4, 1991 in favor of Ms. Cristeta Dalen for finishing the course of BEED in October 1990. It could be noted that the said Special Order is not dated August 4, 1991 but rather August 6, 1991;
3. This Office has no knowledge on the basis of Rodulph U. Paras, Jr., then Education Supervisor III (Assistant Chief) of the Higher Education Division, DECS, Region XI, Davao City, in checking and verifying the school records of Mr. Aquino from the IHU. It is for this reason that his records were again verified and we found out that he is not a graduate in education but commerce from UM Tagum College, Tagum City;
4. CAV (R-XI_A-7217, s. 1999 dated September 2, 1999 attesting to the authenticity of Mr. Aquino's nine (9) units in the masteral course from the UM Tagum College in Tagum City is true and authentic; and
5. Special Order No. 516-0153, s. 1998 dated February 25, 1998 was really issued by this Office in favor of Mr. Mario Aquino for finishing the course of Bachelor of Science in Commerce in UM Tagum College. 5 AcICHD
On October 18, 2004, the CSCRO No. XI wrote a letter to the CHED requesting categorical declaration on the authenticity of the school records of petitioner.
On November 30, 2004, CHED issued a certification declaring that petitioner is a graduate of Bachelor of Science in Commerce and that S.O. No. 211-0641, s. 1991 cannot be found among their files indicating that the same was sourced elsewhere other than from this Office and it was also found out that the same S.O. was awarded to a certain Ms. Cristela Dalen. 6
Thus, on April 4, 2008, the CSCRO No. XI issued a Show Cause Order to petitioner and was required to submit his comment/counter affidavit under oath within three days from its receipt to explain why an administrative case should not be instituted against him. Petitioner submitted his comment and denied the allegations against him.
On May 29, 2008, petitioner appeared at the Legal Services Division, CSCRO for preliminary conference. 7 He insisted that he relied on the strength of the certification, authentication and verification issued by the CHED.
On August 26, 2008, a formal charge for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service was filed against petitioner. One of the material allegations of the said charge stated that petitioner indicated in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) accomplished on June 11, 1993 and January 27, 2005 that he graduated from IHU Davao City in 1990 with the degree of BEED. He filed an Answer whereby he denied the charges made against him. 8
A Decision dated January 17, 2012 was issued by the CSCRO stating, among others, that petitioner practiced deception by declaring that he is a graduate of IHU with a degree of BEED with S.O. No. 211-0641 dated August 4, 1991 when in fact he is not. This conclusion was reached based on the November 30, 2004 certification issued by the CHED. Thus, petitioner was found guilty of the administrative offenses of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. 9 Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CSCRO in a Resolution dated April 16, 2012.
Ruling of the CSC
The CSC affirmed the Decision dated January 17, 2012 and Resolution dated April 16, 2012 of the CSCRO. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated August 27, 2013 reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition for review of Mario S. Aquino, Elementary Grade Teacher (Head Teacher I), Department of Education, Division of Compostela Valley Province, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated January 17, 2012 of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. XI, Davao City, finding him guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from service with accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, disqualification from reemployment in the government service, cancellation of civil service eligibility and bar from taking civil service examinations; and the Resolution dated April 16, 2012 denying his Motion for Reconsideration are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 10
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the CSC in a Resolution dated February 25, 2014.
Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision dated July 22, 2016, the CA affirmed the decision of the CSC. The CA held that the act of petitioner of making it appear in his PDS that he graduated from IHU with a degree in BEED in 1990 clearly reflects his dishonesty and grave misconduct. Petitioner cannot be considered to have acted in good faith because his act negates his protestation of good faith. The falsification by petitioner of his PDS, which is considered a public document, makes him liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. 11 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. TAIaHE
SO ORDERED.12
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied by the CA in a Resolution 13 dated January 12, 2017. Hence, this petition.
The Issues
Petitioner anchors his plea for the reversal of the assailed Decision on the following grounds: 14
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RELEASING A DECISION WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACTS PROVEN IN THIS CASE;
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DEFENSE OF GOOD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER; AND
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE CHED IS BARRED FROM QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDS AND THE SPECIAL ORDER OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER.
Succinctly put, the pivotal issue to be resolved is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the Decision of the CSC and finding him guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is bereft of merit.
The CA committed no reversible error in affirming the Decision of the CSC. The issues raised by petitioner are only a rehash of what was already resolved by the CSC and the CA. The question raised by petitioner regarding the CA's appreciation of the facts of the case is beyond the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. It is not this Court's task to go over the proofs presented below to ascertain if they were appreciated and weighed correctly, most especially when the CA and the CSC speak as one in their findings and conclusions. 15
It is fundamental that only questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is not this Court's function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below, our jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court. The resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect. A question of law which we may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. 16
Nevertheless, it is subject to exceptions such as those enumerated by this Court in Pua v. Spouses Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng: 17
However, several exceptions have been laid down by jurisprudence to allow the scrutiny of the factual arguments advanced by the contending parties, viz.: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of fact are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.
None of these exceptions, however, exists in the instant case.
Based on the records of the case, the CA did not err in affirming the findings of the CSC that petitioner is guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The evidence clearly shows that petitioner stated in his PDS that he graduated from IHU with a degree in BEED when records show that he did not. In Villordon v. Avila, 18 the Supreme Court held:
This Court has already ruled in the past that willful concealment of facts in the PDS constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct. Likewise, making a false statement in one's PDS amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document. cDHAES
xxx xxx xxx
Dishonesty has been defined as "intentionally making a false statement on any material fact." Dishonesty evinces "a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray." (Emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, petitioner failed to rebut the evidence presented by respondents. The CHED certification presented by respondents clearly states that S.O. No. 211-0641, s. 1991 cannot be found among their files indicating that the same was sourced elsewhere other than from the CHED Office. Petitioner cannot simply rely on the verification made by Dr. Paras, Jr. when the latter was not even presented as a witness to testify in his favor.
Petitioner cannot be considered to have acted in good faith. Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render a transaction unconscientious. In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal, we can ascertain a person's intention not from his own protestation of good faith, which is self-serving, but from evidence of his conduct and outward acts. 19 The CA is correct in ruling that petitioner's act of indicating in his PDS that he graduated from IHU, when in fact he did not, constitutes malice on his part thereby negating his assertion of good faith.
Furthermore, the CA correctly found that the CHED is not barred from questioning the validity of the TOR and S.O. No. 211-0641. As stated by Paderanga, the CHED has no knowledge on the basis of Dr. Paras, Jr. in checking and verifying the school records of petitioner from the IHU and it is for this reason that his records were again verified.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 06091-MIN, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and concurred in by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin.
2.Rollo, p. 28.
3.Id.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 29.
6.Id. at 30.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 31.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 31-32.
11.Id. at 34.
12.Id. at 35.
13.Id. at 37-38.
14.Id. at 11-12.
15.Dumduma v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 182606, December 4, 2011.
16.Heirs of Pacencia Racaza v. Spouses Florencio Abay-Abay, G.R. No. 198402, June 13, 2012.
17. G.R. No. 198660, October 23, 2013.
18. A.M. No. P-10-2809, August 10, 2012.
19.Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 180853, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 787, 795, citing Civil Service Commission v. Maala, 504 Phil. 646 (2005).