Case Digest (G.R. No. 145737)
Facts:
Civil Service Commission v. Evelyn P. Cayobit, G.R. No. 145737, September 03, 2003, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The petitioner is the Civil Service Commission (CSC); the respondent is Evelyn P. Cayobit, an employee of the National Housing Authority (NHA).Respondent had worked for the NHA since 1982. She took the Career Service Examination on July 30, 1989; a certificate of eligibility in her personnel files indicated a rating of 81.20%. On March 29, 1990 she was appointed Livelihood Specialist (a co-terminus project post requiring no eligibility), and the CSC approved that appointment retroactively to July 1, 1989.
In September 1993 respondent was appointed Senior Livelihood Officer, a permanent position that required civil service eligibility. On September 29, 1993 Carmelita Bernardino of the CSC field office noticed that respondent’s eligibility was not recorded in the office service card and went to the CSC National Capital Region office on October 18, 1993 to verify. The CSC central office masterlist of eligibles showed respondent had failed the July 30, 1989 examination with a rating of 40.96%. The September 1993 appointment was disapproved.
On October 25, 1993 the CSC formally charged respondent with Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct for allegedly submitting and using a forged certificate of eligibility. After administrative hearings the CSC found respondent guilty in Resolution No. 95-0111 (January 5, 1995) and imposed dismissal with accessory penalties. Respondent sought relief from this Court on March 29, 1995; the petition was initially filed here but, pursuant to the Court’s practice (citing Dennis Lazo v. Civil Service Commission), the matter was referred to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 36978.
The Court of Appeals ordered CSC to retrieve and submit respondent’s answer sheets, but the CSC Management Information Office reported the answer sheets had been destroyed pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 87-070. In a decision dated February 15, 2000 the Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition, holding there was no substa...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the CSC masterlist of eligibles the primary official record of civil service eligibility?
- Was there substantial evidence to sustain the administrative finding that respondent procured and used a fake or spurious certificate of eligibility constituting dishonesty an...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)