Case Summary (G.R. No. 2241)
Relevant Dates and Procedural History
- Cutao claimed to have graduated with a bachelor's degree in criminology from Agusan Institute of Technology (AIT) in 1997.
- CSC Regional Office (CSCRO) No. XIII recalled his appointments via Decision No. LSD-NDC-12-006 dated January 19, 2012.
- The CSC Proper affirmed this recall on October 2, 2012.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the CSC's decisions on January 27, 2016.
- The Supreme Court rendered its final decision on September 30, 2020.
Applicable Law
The relevant legal basis is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly Article IX-B, Section 2(2), mandating that appointments in civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness. Executive Order No. 292 (1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines), specifically Book V provisions on civil service, and CSC Resolution No. 1101502 (Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service) govern administrative procedures related to appointments and recalls.
Background and Facts
Cutao began his police career as PO1 and was promoted through the ranks to SPO II. For his promotion applications, he submitted a Personal Data Sheet (PDS), an official Transcript of Records (TOR) from AIT indicating graduation, and a Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Certification, Authorization, and Verification (CAV) affirming the course's authorization and his signatures. The CSC field office, suspecting irregularities, requested CHED to verify Cutao's documents. CHED responded that the transcript and CAV were not authentic, as the signatures were not genuine and the Special Order cited in the transcript referred to another person, not Cutao. Based on this finding, the CSCRO recalled the approval of Cutao's promotions due to lack of the required bachelor's degree, a qualification required under CSC Resolution No. 02A1288 for the positions in question.
CSC's Ruling and Reasoning
The CSC Proper dismissed Cutao's appeal, emphasizing that the CHED’s declaration rendering his documents inauthentic was substantial evidence of non-possession of the requisite educational qualifications. The CSC gave more weight to CHED's independent verification over Cutao's counter-certifications from AIT’s officials, finding them inconclusive. The CSC clarified it was within its duty to ensure that appointments are only granted to qualified individuals and recalled the appointments accordingly. It further noted that the recall was without prejudice to filing administrative complaints for dishonesty or falsification.
Court of Appeals' Ruling and Grounds
The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC, holding that the CHED verification did not constitute substantial evidence. It reasoned that Cutao had served in government for seven years, acquiring a legal right to his office and that the CSC initially approved his appointments, which led him to believe they were regular. The CA considered Cutao acted in good faith, relying on school-issued documents, and thus found that recall without prior notice and hearing was a violation of due process. The CA emphasized that even in non-disciplinary cases, the affected employee should be accorded notice and hearing before appointment recall or removal.
Issue Presented
The sole issue is whether the CSC may recall a previously approved civil service appointment without affording the appointee prior notice and hearing.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CSC, holding that the CSC has authority to recall previously approved appointments when found to be in disregard of civil service laws and regulations, including the lack of required qualifications. The Court emphasized that such recalls do not entail a full-blown trial and thus do not require prior notice and hearing. Instead, due process can be satisfied by the availability of administrative remedies such as appeals or motions for reconsideration under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
The Court held that the CHED certification declaring Cutao’s educational documents as inauthentic is presumed valid
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 2241)
Background and Nature of the Case
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against Peter G. Cutao, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated January 27, 2016, and Resolution dated May 16, 2016.
- The CA reversed the CSC Resolution No. 1300213 that upheld the recall of Cutao’s appointments as Police Officer (PO) III, Senior PO (SPO) I, and SPO II for failure to meet the educational attainment requirement.
- The controversy centers on the recall of Cutao’s appointments based on allegations of submission of inauthentic documents regarding his educational qualifications.
Professional History and Promotion of Peter G. Cutao
- Cutao started his career in the civil service as a PO1 with the Philippine National Police (PNP).
- He was promoted to PO3, SPO1, and subsequently SPO2; all these promotions were approved by the CSC.
- His application for promotion to SPO2 included submission of a Personal Data Sheet (PDS), transcript of records, and a Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Certification, Authorization and Verification (CAV) allegedly confirming his Bachelor’s degree in Criminology from Agusan Institute of Technology (AIT).
- His transcript bore a notation of graduation from the four-year criminology course as of October 20, 1996, and included a Special Order dated December 14, 1997.
Verification Process and Findings of Non-Authenticity
- The CSC Field Office requested CHED Caraga Administrative Region to verify the authenticity of Cutao’s submitted documents.
- CHED responded with a verification slip indicating the documents were "not authentic" for two main reasons:
- The signatures of CHED personnel on the CAV were not genuine.
- The Special Order referenced on the transcript did not list Cutao but another person, Bernardo F. Dela Cruz.
- This verification led the CSC Regional Office (CSCRO) to conclude that Cutao did not meet the required educational qualifications for his promoted positions.
CSCRO’s Decision to Recall Appointments
- The CSCRO issued Decision No. LSD-NDC-12-006 recalling Cutao’s promotions to PO3, SPO1, and SPO2.
- The recall was ordered on the grounds of lack of qualifications and was without prejudice to filing administrative complaints for Dishonesty and/or Falsification of Public Document.
- The CSCRO requested the PNP Regional Director to revert Cutao to his original position and adjust compensation accordingly upon finality of the decision.
Appeal and Ruling by the CSC Proper
- Cutao appealed to the CSC Proper which dismissed his appeal and upheld the recall of his promotional appointments.
- CSC Proper cited CSC Resolution No. 02A1288 setting a bachelor’s degree as a qualification requirement for the disputed positions.
- It gave greater weight to the CHED’s declaration of document inauthenticity over Cutao’s certification from AIT.
- Cutao’s motion for reconsideration was denied due to failure to present new evidence or identify errors of law.
- The CSC Proper regarded evidence submitted by Cutao, such as letters from AIT officials attesting his enrollment and compliance with graduation requirements, as inconclusive to counteract CHED’s verification.
Court of Appeals Decision
- The CA reversed the rulings of the CSC and CSC Proper.
- It held that the CHED verification slip did not constitute substantial evidence for recalling the appointments.
- The CA emphasized that Cutao had served in government for seven years, acquiring a legal right to the position.
- The CA recognized good faith reliance on the documents which were a