161.

CRUZ V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (TLR)

G.R. No. 144464 | 22 November 2001

Petitioners: Gilda Cruz, Zenaida C. Paitim

FACTS:

In 1994, the Civil Service Commission discovered that petitioner Zenaida Paitim (municipal treasurer
of Norzagaray, Bulacan) took the non-professional examination for Gilda Cruz, after the latter had
previously failed in the said examination three times.

The CSC found after a fact-finding investigation that a prima facie case exists against Paitim and Cruz.
A “Formal Charge” for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service. The petitioners, in their answer, entered a general denial of the formal charge.

The petitioners declared that they were electing a formal investigation on the matter. The
petitioners subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss averring that if the investigation will continue,
they will be deprived of their right to due process because the CSC was the complainant, the
prosecutor, and the judge, all at the same time.

On November 16, 1995, Dulce J. Cochon issued an investigation report and recommendation finding
the petitioners guilty of "Dishonesty" and ordering their dismissal from the government service. The
report was forwarded to the CSC for its consideration, and likewise found the petitioners guilty and
ordered the same to be dismissed from government service.

Petitioners maintain that the CSC did not have original jurisdiction to hear and decide the
administrative case. Allegedly, in accordance with Sec. 47(1), Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title 1, Book V,
Administrative Code of 1987, the CSC is vested with appellate jurisdiction only in all administrative
cases where the penalty imposed is removal or dismissal from the office and where the complaint
was filed by a private citizen against the government employee.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner’ right to due process was violated when the CSC acted as an investigator,
complainant, prosecutor and judge all at the same time.

RULING:

The SC ruled in the negative.

Petitioners' invocation of the law is misplaced. The provision is applicable to instances where
administrative cases are Bled against erring employees in connection with their duties and functions
of the office. This is, however, not the scenario contemplated in the case at bar. It must be noted
that the acts complained of arose from a cheating caused by the petitioners in the Civil Service
(Subprofessional) examination. The examinations were under the direct control and supervision of
the Civil Service Commission. The culprits are government employees over whom the Civil Service
Commission undeniably has jurisdiction. Thus, after the petitioners were duly investigated and
ascertained whether they were indeed guilty of dishonesty, the penalty meted was dismissal from
the office.

Section 28, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations explicitly provides that the
CSC can rightfully take cognizance over any irregularities or anomalies connected to the
examinations.
Petitioners' contention that they were denied due process of law by the fact that the CSC acted as
investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge, all at the same time against the petitioners is
untenable. The CA correctly explained that the CSC is mandated to hear and decide administrative
case instituted by it or instituted before it directly or on appeal including actions of its officers and
the agencies attached to it pursuant to Book V, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 3, Section 12, paragraph
11 of the Administrative Code of 1987 which states:

(11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on
appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices
and of the agencies attached to it. Officials and employees who fail to comply with such
decisions, orders, or rulings shall be liable for contempt of the Commission. Its decisions,
orders, or rulings shall be final and executory. Such decisions, orders, or rulings may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty (30) days
from receipt of a copy thereof;

The fact that the complaint was filed by the CSC itself does not mean that it could not be an
impartial judge. As an administrative body, its decision was based on substantial findings. Factual
findings of administrative bodies, being considered experts in their field, are binding on the Supreme
Court.

It cannot 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, given a chance to
submit their answer and were given the opportunity to defend themselves. Hence, no denial of due
process.

Petition was denied.