FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237480. June 11, 2018.]
EMMANUEL F. EMPRESE, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 11, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237480 (Emmanuel F. Emprese v. Civil Service Commission). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
The Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error in affirming the October 26, 2015 Decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which sustained petitioner's dismissal from the service for serious dishonesty, falsification of official documents, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Factual findings of administrative agencies are held to be binding and final so long as they are supported by substantial evidence, as in this case. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court. Considering that the legal conclusions of the CA are also in accord with pertinent laws and jurisprudence, there exists no ground to reexamine them. HTcADC
We cannot sustain petitioner's contention that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh, and grant his invocation for the mitigating circumstances of good faith and length of service to be appreciated in his favor. Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), serious dishonesty, grave misconduct and falsification of official documents are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service. 1 Thus, as provided by law, there is no other penalty that should be imposed on petitioner than the penalty of dismissal.
True, the rules allow the consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances and provide for the manner of imposition of the proper penalty. 2 Thus, in at least three cases, taking into consideration the presence of mitigating circumstances, we lowered the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent to that of forced resignation or suspension for 6 months and 1 day to 1 year without benefits. 3
Under the facts of this case, however, petitioner is not entitled to a lower penalty.
Petitioner argues that his going to the CSC on April 16, 2013 for the authentication of his Certificate of Career Service (CS) Subprofessional Eligibility shows good faith, for no one in his right mind would have the guts to have his eligibility authenticated if he knew that he committed a wrong. 4 However, the Court believes otherwise. Petitioner's attempt to have his eligibility authenticated is rather a bold attempt to perpetuate a fraud committed on the Civil Service. In light of the evidence that petitioner did not take the exam on the CS Subprofessional Examination on January 24, 2002 and that somebody else took the exam on his behalf, petitioner has no eligibility to speak of, more so, an eligibility to be authenticated. Petitioner's reliance on good faith is thus too strained. To be sure, this is not the good faith contemplated by law which may be a ground for the mitigation of the penalty imposed on the person invoking it. CAIHTE
As regards petitioner's contention that his length of service should be taken as a mitigating circumstance, we hold otherwise. Petitioner has no civil service eligibility to speak of, and therefore has no right to remain in government service. Moreover, that he was not found guilty of any other administrative or criminal offense as he alleged, is of no moment. His lack of eligibility and the gravity of his transgression warrant the heavy penalty of dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals' August 16, 2017 Decision and February 5, 2018 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 145101.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Tijam, J., on official leave; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Sec. 46, RRACCS.
2. Sec. 48, RRACCS.
3.Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, G.R. No. 155732, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 593, 603. Citations omitted.
4.Rollo, pp. 11-12.