65 SUPREME COURT KAPUNAN, J.

:
0 REPORTS
ANNOTATED Assailed in the instant petition is the decision of the Court of
Appeals upholding Resolution No. 981695 of the Civil Service
Cruz vs. Civil Service
Commission for allegedly being contrary to law and
Commission jurisprudence.
G.R. No. 144464. November 27, 2001. *
The facts are as follows:
GILDA G. CRUZ and ZENAIDA C. PAITIM, On September 9, 1994, the Chairperson of the Civil Service
petitioners, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Commission (CSC), received a letter from a private individual,
respondent.
Administrative Law; Civil Service Commission; Court of _______________
Appeals correctly explained that the Civil Service Commission is
mandated to hear and decide administrative cases instituted by it or  EN BANC.
*

instituted before it directly or on appeal, including actions of its 651

officers and the agencies attached to it.—Petitioners’ contention that VOL. 370, 651
they were denied due process of law by the fact that the CSC acted NOVEMBER 27, 2001
as investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge, all at the same Cruz vs. Civil Service
time against the petitioners is untenable. The CA correctly explained
that the CSC is mandated to hear and decide administrative cases
Commission
instituted by it or instituted before it directly or on appeal, including Carmelita B. Esteban, claiming that, during the examinations
actions of its officers and the agencies attached to it. for non-professional in the career civil service, given by the
Same; Same; Factual findings of administrative bodies, being Civil Service Commission, on July 30, 1989 in Quezon City,
considered experts in their field, are binding on the Supreme Court. Zenaida C. Paitim, the Municipal Treasurer of Norzagaray,
—The fact that the complaint was filed by the CSC itself does not Bulacan, falsely pretending to be the examinee, Gilda Cruz, a
mean that it could not be an impartial judge. As an administrative co-employee in the said office, took the examinations for the
body, its decision was based on substantial findings. Factual findings latter. Carmelita Esteban requested the CSC to investigate the
of administrative bodies, being considered experts in their field, are matter, appending to said letter, pictures purporting to be those
binding on the Supreme Court. of Gilda Cruz and Zenaida Paitim.
On September 20, 1994, Erlinda A. Rosas, Director IV of
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court
the Commission, issued a Memorandum to Eliseo Gatchalian,
of Appeals.
the Director of the Management Information Office of the
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Commission, requesting the latter to furnish her with the
     Ponciano Hernandez for petitioners. picture seat plan of the room where Gilda G. Cruz was during
     The Solicitor General for respondent. the said examination, to ascertain the veracity of the letter-
complaint. Eliseo S. Gatchalian did furnish Erlinda Rosas with

1|Page
certified true copies of the picture seat plans of the rooms picture of Cruz pasted in the Picture Seat Plan of the said examination held
where Gilda G. Cruz was assigned not only in the 1989 but at Room 21 of the Ramon Magsaysay Elementary School, Quezon City,
bears no resemblance to the pictures of Cruz as appearing in the picture seat
also in the 1987 and 1988 career service (subprofessional) plans of the previous Career Service Subprofessional Examinations which
examinations. On November 8, 1994, Erlinda Rosas thereby she took last July 26, 1987 and July 31, 1988 respectively. It would appear
wrote a Memorandum to Civil Service Commissioner Thelma that the purported picture of Cruz pasted in the Picture Seat Plan of the said
P. Gaminde, dated November 8, 1994, declaring that based on July 30, 1989 examination is the picture of a different person. Further
the record, she found a prima facie case against Zenaida Paitim verification showed that this picture belongs to a certain Zenaida Paitim,
Municipal Treasurer of Norzagaray, Bulacan who apparently took the said
and Gilda G. Cruz. examination on behalf of Cruz and on the basis of the application bearing
On the basis of said memorandum, a fact finding the name and personal circumstances of Cruz.”
investigation was conducted. On March 31, 1995, a “Formal WHEREFORE, Gilda Cruz and Zenaida Paitim are hereby directed
Charge” for “Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct to answer in writing and under oath within five (5) days from receipt
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service” signed by Bella hereof. To support your Answer, you may submit supporting
Amilhasan, Director IV of the Civil Service Commission documents/ sworn statements.
Regional Office No. 3 was filed against Gilda Cruz and In your Answer, you should state whether you elect to have a
Zenaida C. Paitim, with the Civil Service Commission, formal investigation or waive your right to said investigations should
docketed as Administrative Case No. D3-95-052, which reads your Answer be found not satisfactory.
You are advised that you are entitled to the assistance of a
as follows:
counsel.
FORMAL CHARGE
By Authority of the Commission:
(Sgd.) Bella A. Amilhasan
MESDAMES:
Director IV 1

This Office has found after a fact finding investigation that a prima
facie case exists against you for DISHONESTY, GRAVE The petitioners filed their Answer to the charge entering a
MISCONDUCT and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST general denial of the material averments of the “Formal
INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, committed as follows: Charge.” They also declared that they were electing a formal
652 investigation on the matter. The petitioners subsequently filed a
65 SUPREME COURT Motion to Dismiss averring that if the investigation will
2 REPORTS continue, they will be deprived of their right to due process
ANNOTATED because the Civil Service Commission was the complainant,
Cruz vs. Civil Service the Prosecutor and the Judge, all at the same time.
Commission _______________
“That Gilda Cruz applied to take the July 30, 1989 Career Service
Subprofessional examination. A verification of our records revealed that the 1
 Rollo, p. 19.

2|Page
 653 WHEREFORE, Zenaida Paitim and Gilda Cruz are hereby found
VOL. 370, 653 guilty of Dishonesty. Accordingly, they are imposed the penalty of
NOVEMBER 27, 2001 dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties. The Civil
Service (Subprofessional) Eligibility of Gilda Cruz is also cancelled.
Cruz vs. Civil Service
Commission _______________
On July 17, 1995, Director Bella A. Amilhasan issued an order
denying the motion.  The
2
subsequent motion for  Id., at 26-27.
2

 Id., at 50.
3

reconsideration of said order was likewise dismissed. 654

Dulce J. Cochon, Attorney III of the CSC was thereby 65 SUPREME COURT
directed to conduct the formal administrative investigation of
4 REPORTS
petitioners’ case.
On November 16, 1995, Dulce J. Cochon issued an ANNOTATED
“Investigation Report and Recommendation” finding the Cruz vs. Civil Service
Petitioners guilty of “Dishonesty” and ordering their dismissal Commission
from the government service, the decretal portion of which Let a copy of this Resolution, as well as other relevant documents, be
reads as follows: furnished the Office of the Ombudsman for whatever action it may
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Office take under the premises.”4

recommends the dismissal from the service with all its accessory Petitioners then went up to the Court of Appeals assailing the
penalties of respondents Zenaida Paitim and Gilda Cruz, both resolution of the CSC.
employees of the Municipality of Norzagaray, Bulacan for the On November 29, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
offenses of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial petition before it. The motion for reconsideration was,
to the Best Interest of the Service. Furthermore, this Office likewise, denied on August 9, 2000.
recommends the filing of criminal charges against them that shall Hence, this petition.
serve as a deterrent to all possible plans of making a mockery to the In the instant petition, petitioners raised the following
sanctity of Civil Service Law and Rules as well as the constitutional assignment of errors:
mandate that ‘A public office is a public trust. (Idem. Supra.)
3

The aforesaid “Investigation Report and Recommendation” I

was then forwarded to the Civil Service Commission for its
consideration and resolution. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY AND SERIOUSLY
On July 1, 1998, the Civil Service Commission issued ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS’
Resolution No. 981695 finding the petitioners guilty of the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAS NOT
charges and ordered their dismissal from the government VIOLATED IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. D3-95-052
service. The decretal portion reads as follows: WHERE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ACTED AS THE
INVESTIGATOR, THE COMPLAINANT, THE PROSECUTOR,

3|Page
AND THE JUDGE, ALL AT THE SAME TIME, AGAINST conducted an investigation and verified that the two employees
PETITIONERS. IN SO DOING, RESPONDENT COMMISSION were indeed guilty of dishonesty. Thus, in accordance with the
COMMITTED A MOCKERY OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE CSC law, the petitioners merited the penalty of dismissal.
AND THE COURT OF APPEALS SANCTIONED IT. Petitioners maintain that the CSC did not have original
jurisdiction to hear and decide the administrative case.
II
Allegedly, in accordance with Section 47(1), Chapter 7,
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY AND SERIOUSLY Subtitle A, Title 1, Book V, Administrative Code of 1987, the
ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT COMMISSION HAS CSC is vested with appellate jurisdiction only in all
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DECIDE A administrative cases where the penalty imposed is removal or
COMPLAINT OR CHARGE WHETHER FILED BY A PRIVATE dismissal from the office and where the complaint was filed by
CITIZEN OR BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ITSELF. a private citizen against the government employee.  It reads:
6

THE LAW VESTS IN RESPONDENT COMMISSION ONLY Sec. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. (1) The Commission shall decide
APPELLATE, NOT ORIGINAL, JURISDICTION IN ALL upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days, or a
EMPLOYEE INVOLVING THE IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY fine in an amount exceeding thirty days’ salary, demotion in rank or
OF REMOVAL OR DISMISSAL FROM OFFICE WHERE THE salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office, A complaint may
COMPLAINT THEREFORE WAS NOT FILED BY A PRIVATE be filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen against a
CITIZEN AS IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. D3-95-052 OF government official or employee in which case it may hear and
RESPONDENT COMMISSION. 5
decide the case or it may deputize any department or agency or
official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The results
_______________ of the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission with
recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other action to be
 Id., at 39.
4

 Id., at 6-7.
5
taken. 7

655      (Emphasis supplied.)

VOL. 370, 655 Petitioners’ invocation of the law is misplaced. The provision
NOVEMBER 27, 2001 is applicable to instances where administrative cases are filed
against erring employees in connection with their duties and
Cruz vs. Civil Service functions of the office. This is, however, not the scenario
Commission contemplated in the case at bar. It must be noted that the acts
We find no merit in the petition. complained of
There is no question that petitioner Zenaida Paitim,
masquerading herself as petitioner Gilda Cruz, took the civil _______________
service examinations in her behalf. Gilda Cruz passed the
 Id., at 96.
6
examinations. On the basis of a tip-off that the two public  Id., at 11.
7

employees were involved in an anomalous act, the CSC 656

4|Page
65 SUPREME COURT Commission. Its decisions, orders, or rulings shall be final and
6 REPORTS executory. Such decisions, orders, or rulings may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty (30)
ANNOTATED days from receipt of a copy thereof;
Cruz vs. Civil Service The fact that the complaint was filed by the CSC itself does not
Commission mean that it could not be an impartial judge. As an
arose from a cheating caused by the petitioners in the Civil administrative body, its decision was based on substantial
Service (Subprofessional) examination. The examinations were findings. Factual findings of administrative bodies, being
under the direct control and supervision of the Civil Service considered experts in their
Commission. The culprits are government employees over 657
whom the Civil Service Commission undeniably has VOL. 370, 657
jurisdiction. Thus, after the petitioners were duly investigated NOVEMBER 27, 2001
and ascertained whether they were indeed guilty of dishonesty, Cruz vs. Civil Service
the penalty meted was dismissal from the office. Commission
Section 28, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules field, are binding on the Supreme Court.  The records clearly
8

and Regulations explicitly provides that the CSC can rightfully disclose that the petitioners were duly investigated by the CSC
take cognizance over any irregularities or anomalies connected and found that:
to the examinations, as it reads: After a careful examination of the records, the Commission finds
Sec. 28. The Commission shall have original disciplinary jurisdiction respondents guilty as charged.
over all its officials and employees and over all cases involving civil The photograph pasted over the name Gilda Cruz in the Picture
service examination anomalies or irregularities.” Seat Plan (PSP) during the July 30, 1989 Career Service
Petitioners’ contention that they were denied due process of Examination is not that of Cruz but of Paitim. Also, the signature
law by the fact that the CSC acted as investigator, complainant, over the name of Gilda Cruz in the said document is totally different
prosecutor and judge, all at the same time against the from the signature of Gilda Cruz.
petitioners is untenable. The CA correctly explained that the It should be stressed that as a matter of procedure, the room
CSC is mandated to hear and decide administrative case examiners assigned to supervise the conduct of a Civil Service
instituted by it or instituted before it directly or on appeal examination closely examine the pictures submitted and affixed on
including actions of its officers and the agencies attached to it the Picture Seat Plan (CSC Resolution No. 95-3694, Obedencio,
pursuant to Book V, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 3, Section 12, Jaime A.). The examiners carefully compare the appearance of each
of the examinees with the person in the picture submitted and affixed
paragraph 11 of the Administrative Code of 1987 which states:
on the PSP. In cases where the examinee does not look like the
(11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought
person in the picture submitted and attached on the PSP, the
before it directly or on appeal, including contested appointments, and
examiner will not allow the said person to take the examination
review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies
(CSC Resolution No. 95-5195, Taguinay, Ma. Theresa)
attached to it. Officials and employees who fail to comply with such
decisions, orders, or rulings shall be liable for contempt of the

5|Page
 The facts, therefore, that Paitim’s photograph was attached over case. We do not find reversible error with the decision of the
the name of Gilda Cruz in the PSP of the July 30, 1989 Career Court of Appeals in upholding the CSC Resolution.
Service Examination, shows that it was Paitim who took the WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed
examination. decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
In a similar case, the Commission ruled: SO ORDERED.
“It should be stressed that the registered examinee’s act of asking or
allowing another person to take the examination in her behalf constitutes      Davide,
that the evidence on record clearly established that another person took the Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganib
Civil Service Examination for De Guzman, she should be held liable for the an, Quisumbing,  Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago,  De Leon,
said offense.” Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.
At the outset, it is axiomatic that in the offense of impersonation, Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
two persons are always involved. In the instant case, the offense Note.—The Civil Service Law now includes the review of
cannot prosper without the active participation of both Arada and de
decisions exonerating officers or employees from
Leon. Thus, the logical conclusion is that de Leon took the
examination for and in behalf of Arada. Consequently, they are both administrative charges. (Civil Service Commission vs.
administratively liable. (Arada, Carolina C. and de Leon, Ponciana Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 425 [1999])
Anne M.) 9

——o0o——
_______________
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved
 Golden Thread Knitting Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, 305 SCRA 327 (1999).
8

 Id., at 38-39.
9

658
658 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Re: Problem of Delays in
Cases Before the
Sandiganbayan
It can not be denied that the petitioners were formally charged
after a finding that a prima facie case for dishonesty lies
against them. They were properly informed of the charges.
They submitted an Answer and were given the opportunity to
defend themselves. Petitioners can not, therefore, claim that
there was a denial of due process much less the lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the CSC to take cognizance of the

6|Page