Case Summary (G.R. No. 202792)
Procedural History
First administrative complaint: filed May 14, 1992 with CSC-RO II; CSC-RO II decision (May 22, 2000) found Salvador guilty only of simple misconduct and imposed one-month suspension; CSC denied Pagaduan’s appeal for lack of aggrievement and approved Salvador’s qualifications; the CSC-RO II decision attained finality (order of January 21, 2002) and Salvador served suspension. Criminal prosecution: MTCC convicted Salvador of falsification of public documents (October 22, 2008); Salvador did not appeal and was granted probation. Second administrative complaint: filed after the criminal conviction, charging “conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.” CSC-RO II found Salvador guilty and imposed dismissal (January 12, 2010). CSC reversed and exonerated Salvador (March 1, 2011). CA initially reversed CSC and affirmed CSC-RO II (February 28, 2012), then amended its decision on reconsideration to reinstate CSC (August 31, 2012). Petitioner sought Supreme Court review; the Supreme Court granted the petition and ultimately reversed the CA’s August 31, 2012 Amended Decision and reinstated the CA’s February 28, 2012 decision affirming the CSC-RO II dismissal.
Facts Relevant to the Merits
Salvador’s PDS asserted employment at VWI; she claimed employment through Alfonso Tuzon, who allegedly managed VWI operations; records produced showed she was not listed among VWI employees, received salary from a different person (Rodolfo Quiambao), had no VWI identification, no employment contract with VWI, did not work at VWI office, and was not on VWI payroll. The MTCC found Salvador made an untruthful narration of facts and perverted the truth with wrongful intent, rejecting her claim of good faith for lack of independent supporting evidence. Salvador applied for probation after conviction, which was granted.
Issues Presented
Substantive: Whether Salvador was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, thereby justifying dismissal from the public service. Procedural: Whether the second administrative complaint was barred by res judicata or constituted forum shopping in view of the earlier administrative proceeding that resulted in a final decision for simple misconduct.
Res Judicata and Forum Shopping Analysis
The Court distinguished the two administrative proceedings: the first addressed whether Salvador falsified her PDS (falsification and misrepresentation) and culminated in simple misconduct; the second addressed whether Salvador had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (based on the MTCC criminal conviction). Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment (res judicata), a fact or question previously and finally adjudicated binds the parties only as to the matters actually decided. The Court found no identity of issues and facts between the two administrative cases because the legal grounds and material facts differ—falsification was the focal issue in the first case, while the second case hinged on the finality and character (moral turpitude) of the criminal conviction. Because the requisite identity of parties, rights asserted, and relief founded on the same set of facts was absent, forum shopping was likewise not established.
Legal Standard for “Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude”
Two elements must be present: (1) a conviction of a crime that has attained finality; and (2) the crime for which the accused was convicted involves moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is defined in the cited authorities as conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the duties owed to fellowmen or society. Not every criminal act involves moral turpitude; determination requires examination of the nature of the crime and its elements.
Application to Falsification of Public Document
The MTCC found Salvador committed falsification of a public document by making an untruthful narration of facts in her PDS and perverting the truth with wrongful intent; it rejected her claim of good faith based on independent evidence. Jurisprudence and the Court’s reasoning emphasize that in falsification of public or official documents the principal harm punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth solemnly proclaimed in public documents. Therefore, intent to gain or to injure a third person is immaterial. Given the final criminal conviction for falsification and the nature of that crime as contrary to honesty and public trust, the Court concluded the second element (moral turpitude) was satisfied. The Court relied on prior decisions cited in the record that treated falsification of public documents as involving moral turpitude and meriting serious administrative sanctions (including disbarment in attorney disciplinary cases).
Effect of Probation and Distinction Between Criminal and Administrative Liability
The Court addressed the contention that probation erases the effect of conviction and argued that probation does not obliterate the conviction or erase its fact; it merely suspends the penalty imposed. Probation is aimed at reform and rehabilitation but does not expunge the conviction for purposes of administrative liability. Administrative liability is separate and distinct from criminal liability; the grant of probation affects only the criminal sanction. Consequently, probation does not bar administrative action predicated
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 202792)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 seeking review, reversal and setting aside of the August 31, 2012 Amended Decision and the February 20, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 120208.
- Initial disposition: Supreme Court denied the petition in a July 10, 2013 Resolution for failure to show reversible error; petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.
- On October 23, 2013 the Court granted reconsideration, set aside its July 10, 2013 Resolution, reinstated the petition and required respondents to file comments.
- Filing timeline after reinstatement: private respondent filed her Comment on January 23, 2014; petitioner filed her Reply to Comment on February 7, 2014.
- The Office of the Solicitor General represented the Civil Service Commission but opted not to file a comment (Explanation filed September 29, 2014 noted a comment was attached but none was attached).
- Final resolution: Supreme Court decision dated November 19, 2014 disposed of the petition (G.R. No. 206379).
Facts: Complaint, Employment Background, and Early Proceedings
- On May 14, 1992, petitioner Cecilia Pagaduan filed a notarized administrative complaint with Civil Service Commission–Regional Office No. 2 (CSC-RO II) in Tuguegarao City against Rema Martin Salvador, then newly appointed Municipal Budget Officer, charging falsification and misrepresentation.
- Allegation: Salvador indicated in her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) that she performed bookkeeping and accounting for Veteran's Woodworks, Inc. (VWI) from August 1, 1990 to February 15, 1992, but was never actually employed by VWI.
- Salvador’s explanation: she claimed employment by Alfonso Tuzon, whom the VWI Board of Directors had granted full management, direct supervision and control of VWI’s logging operations; her name did not appear on VWI payroll because Tuzon’s office was independent from VWI’s original staff.
- October 19, 1994: Pagaduan filed a criminal charge in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15482 (as stated in the source).
- Administrative proceedings before CSC-RO II culminated in a May 22, 2000 decision finding Salvador liable only for Simple Misconduct and meting the penalty of one (1) month suspension, characterizing the act as a mere error of judgment.
- Pagaduan’s motion for reconsideration of the May 22, 2000 decision was denied; appeal to the Civil Service Commission found Pagaduan lacked standing as the party aggrieved and approved Salvador’s qualification as Municipal Budget Officer on the basis that her experience in VWI was a "related field."
- January 21, 2002: CSC-RO II issued an order stating its May 22, 2000 decision had attained finality; Salvador served the one-month suspension.
- October 22, 2008: the MTCC rendered a decision in a criminal docket identified in the source as Criminal Case No. 15842, finding Salvador guilty of falsification of public documents. Salvador did not appeal and instead applied for probation, which was granted for one (1) year.
- Following the criminal conviction, Pagaduan filed a second administrative complaint against Salvador for the administrative offense of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
- Salvador, in the second administrative case, raised defenses including res judicata, forum shopping, and double jeopardy, and submitted a counter-affidavit and supporting documents.
- January 12, 2010: CSC-RO II found Salvador guilty of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude based on her MTCC conviction and imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service with accessory penalties.
- Salvador’s motion for reconsideration of the January 12, 2010 CSC-RO II decision was denied; she appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
- March 1, 2011: CSC reversed and set aside the CSC-RO II decision, exonerating Salvador of the administrative charge, and issued a stern warning to be more cautious and prudent in accomplishing public documents.
- Pagaduan moved for reconsideration of the CSC decision but the motion was denied on June 1, 2011; she appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
- February 28, 2012: CA rendered a decision reversing the CSC and affirming the CSC-RO II January 12, 2010 decision (i.e., finding Salvador guilty of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude).
- Salvador filed a motion for reconsideration in the CA; on August 31, 2012, the CA granted the motion and issued an Amended Decision reversing its February 28, 2012 decision and reinstating the March 1, 2011 CSC decision.
- The present petition to the Supreme Court sought review of the CA’s August 31, 2012 Amended Decision (and the CA’s February 20, 2013 Resolution).
Issues Presented
- Substantive issue: Whether Rema Martin Salvador was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
- Procedural issues raised by respondent Salvador: res judicata and forum shopping (also invoked double jeopardy in defenses at administrative level).
- Additional contested questions implied by assignments of error: whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in exonerating Salvador and in failing to apply particular jurisprudence (e.g., Teves v. Sandiganbayan) categorizing falsification as a crime involving moral turpitude, and whether the CA erred in not affirming CSC-RO II’s dismissal decision.
Assignments of Error (as presented by petitioner)
- The Court of Appeals seriously erred and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it finally exonerated respondent of the administrative charge of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude by finding the falsification committed in her PDS as only simple misconduct which does not amount to moral turpitude.
- The Court of Appeals erred and acted with