Q. No. 6 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023

Q. No. 6 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023

Q. No. 6 | Political Law

“Hector, a government employee, asked Ignacio to take the Police Officer I Examination in his behalf. Upon investigation, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) observed that the picture of Hector and signature in the application form and seat plan were not identical with those found in his Personal Data Sheet. Thus, the CSC concluded that Hector conspired with Ignacio by allowing the latter to impersonate him (Hector) and found him (Hector) guilty of dishonesty, meting out the penalty of dismissal. Hector appealed his dismissal to the Court of Appeals. He argued that the CSC has been divested of its authority and jurisdiction to conduct investigations and render administrative decisions based on alleged anomalies in police entrance and promotional examinations after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 8551 or the Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act. The law transferred the power to administer and conduct entrance and promotional examinations to police officers from the CSC to the National Police Commission based on the standards set by the latter. Is Hector correct? Explain[.]”

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

NOTE:

The case under consideration is similar to MELVIN G. SAN FELIX, v. CSC, G.R. No. 198404, October 14, 2019. Penned by HERNANDO, J. where the Court held that:

“To reiterate, as of March 6, 1998, the CSC had no more authority to conduct entrance and promotional examinations for police officer and senior police officer positions by virtue of R.A. No. 8551, which amended R.A. No. 6975. In effect, the CSC then had no power to grant police officer eligibility in order for an applicant to be appointed in a police officer and senior police officer position. Consequently, the said examination conducted on March 29, 1998 was without legal effect and conferred no rights in view of the effectivity of R.A. No. 8551 amending R.A. No. 6975. Petitioner's reliance on the CSC's authority to conduct the Police Officer I Examinations on March 29, 1998 and conferment of police officer eligibility for allegedly passing the said exam could not serve as a bar to investigate the concomitant anomalies he committed since he was never in good faith to start with[.]”

Despite the fact that the CSC had no authority to administer entrance and promotional examinations for police officers, this did not divest the CSC of its jurisdiction to investigate the veracity of the facts stated by a civil servant in his or her PDS. 

It is true that the NPC has the power and authority to administer entrance and promotional examinations for police officers and senior police officer positions and consequently, investigate the anomalies and irregularities committed during said examinations. However, as the central personnel agency, the CSC has the original disciplinary jurisdiction over the act of the petitioner in order to protect the integrity of the civil service system which is an integral part of the CSC's duty, authority, and power as provided in Article IX-B, Section 3 of the Constitution by removing from its roster of eligibles those who falsified their qualifications. This should be distinguished from ordinary proceedings intended to discipline a bona fide member of the system, for acts or omissions that constitute violations of the law or the rules of service.²¹ 

Clearly, the NPC has no jurisdiction concerning matters involving the integrity of the civil service system. Based on the foregoing, the CSC properly investigated the act of the petitioner of making false statements in his PDS, that is, his claim that he possesses the necessary civil service eligibility to be appointed in a police officer position as well as the discrepancy in his signatures in the PDS, in the application form and picture-seat plan of the Police Officer I Examination dated March 29, 1998. 

As held by this Court in Inting v. Tanodbayan,²² "the accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet, being a requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment in the government, the making of an untruthful statement therein was, therefore, intimately connected with such employment x x x[.]”

In Villordon v. Avila,²³ this 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. x x x

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 ours)

HERE, Hector cannot justify his dishonest act on the fact that the CSC already lost its authority to administer the  Police Officer I examinations because he cannot be considered to have acted in good faith in the first place. Hector’s act of passing off in his PDS that he has hurdled successfully the Police Officer I examinations constituted malice on his part thereby negating any assertion of good faith. Neither can he argue that his appointment was a permanent one that entitled him to security of tenure. A perusal of his appointment showed that the same was subject to the verification of his civil service eligibility which in this case, he evidently has none.

MELVIN G. SAN FELIX, v. CSC, G.R. No. 198404, October 14, 2019. Penned by HERNANDO, J.

Read the full text at

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2019octoberdecisions.php?id=873

FOOTNOTES

21 Civil Service Commission v. Albao, 509 Phil. 530, 539 (2005), cited in Capablanca v. Civil Service Commission, 620 Phil. 62, 76 (2009).

²² 186 Phil. 343, 348 (1980), cited in Lumancas v. Intas, 400 Phil. 785, 799 (2000).