EN BANC

G.R. No. 192074               June 10, 2014

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, represented by its Administrator MELQUIADES A. ROBLES, Petitioner, 

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

An administrative agency has standing to appeal the Civil Service Commission's repeal or modification of its original
decision. In such instances, it is included in the concept of a "party adversely affected" by a decision of the Civil Service
Commission granted the statutory right to appeal:

We are asked in this petition for review1 filed by the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA), a government-owned and
-controlled corporation, to modify the Civil Service Commission’s finding that respondent was guilty only of simple
dishonesty..

Facts:

On May 12, 2006, then Administrator of the Light Rail Transit Authority, Melquiades Robles, issued Office Order No. 119,
series of 2006.2 The order revoked Atty. Aurora A. Salvaña’s designation as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the LRTA
Administrative Department. It "direct[ed] her instead to handle special projects and perform such other duties and
functions as may be assigned to her"3 by the Administrator.

Atty. Salvaña was directed to comply with this office order through a memorandum issued on May 22, 2006 by Atty. Elmo
Stephen P. Triste, the newly designated OIC of the administrative department. Instead of complying, Salvaña questioned
the order with the Office of the President.4

In the interim, Salvaña applied for sick leave of absence on May 12, 2006 and from May 15 to May 31, 2006. 5 In support
of her application, she submitted a medical certificate 6 issued by Dr. Grace Marie Blanco of the Veterans Memorial
Medical Center (VMMC).

LRTA discovered that Dr. Blanco did not issue this medical certificate. Dr. Blanco also denied having seen or treated
Salvaña on May 15, 2006, the date stated on her medical certificate. 7 On June 23, 2006, Administrator Robles issued a
notice of preliminary investigation. The notice directed Salvaña to explain in writing within 72 hours from her receipt of the
notice "why no disciplinary action should be taken against [her]" 8 for not complying with Office Order No. 119 and for
submitting a falsified medical certificate.9

Salvaña filed her explanation on June 30, 2006. 10 She alleged that as a member of the Bids and Awards Committee, she
"refused to sign a resolution"11 favoring a particular bidder. She alleged that Office Order No. 119 was issued by
Administrator Robles to express his "ire and vindictiveness"12 over her refusal to sign.

The LRTA’s Fact-finding Committee found her explanation unsatisfactory. On July 26, 2006, it issued a formal charge
against her for Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Document, Grave Misconduct, Gross Insubordination, and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.13

On August 5, 2006, "Salvaña tendered her irrevocable resignation." 14 None of the pleadings alleged that this irrevocable
resignation was accepted, although the resolution of the Fact-finding Committee alluded to Administrator Robles’
acceptance of the resignation letter.

On October 31, 2006, the Fact-finding Committee issued a resolution "finding Salvaña guilty of all the charges against her
and imposed [on] her the penalty of dismissal from . . . service with all the accessory penalties." 17 The LRTA Board of
Directors approved the findings of the Fact-finding Committee 18

Salvaña appealed with the Civil Service Commission. "In her appeal, [she] claimed that she was denied due process and
that there [was] no substantial evidence to support the charges against her." 19
On July 18, 2007, the Civil Service Commission modified the decision and issued Resolution No. 071364.The Civil
Service Commission found that Salvaña was guilty only of simple dishonesty. She was meted a penalty of suspension for
three months.20

LRTA moved for reconsideration21 of the resolution. This was denied in a resolution dated May 26, 2008. 22 LRTA then filed
a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.23

On November 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals24 dismissed the petition and affirmed the Civil Service Commission’s finding
that Salvaña was only guilty of simple dishonesty. The appellate court also ruled that Administrator Robles had no
standing to file a motion for reconsideration before the Civil Service Commission because that right only belonged to
respondent in an administrative case.25 LRTA moved for reconsideration26 of this decision but was denied.27

Hence, LRTA filed this present petition.

Issues:

1. Whether the LRTA, as represented by its Administrator, has the standing to appeal the modification by the Civil
Service Commission of its decision

2. Whether Salvaña was correctly found guilty of simple dishonesty only

Held:

We grant the petition.

The parties may appeal in administrative cases involving members of the civil service

It is settled that "[t]he right to appeal is not a natural right [or] a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and
may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law." 39 If it is not granted by the
Constitution, it can only be availed of when a statute provides for it. 40 When made available by law or regulation, however,
a person cannot be deprived of that right to appeal. Otherwise, there will be a violation of the constitutional requirement of
due process of law.

Article IX (B), Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the Civil Service Commission shall be "the central personnel
agency of the Government."41 In line with the constitutionally enshrined policy that a public office is a public trust, the
Commission was tasked with the duty "to set standards and to enforce the laws and rules governing the selection,
utilization, training, and discipline of civil servants."42

Civil servants enjoy security of tenure, and "[n]o officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed
except for cause as provided by law and after due process."43 Under Section 12, Chapter 3, Book V of the Administrative
Code, it is the Civil Service Commission that has the power to "[h]ear and decide administrative cases instituted by or
brought before it directly or on appeal."

The grant of the right to appeal in administrative cases is not new. In Republic Act No. 2260 or the Civil Service Law of
1959, appeals "by the respondent"44 were allowed on "[t]he decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service rendered in an
administrative case involving discipline of subordinate officers and employees." 45

The phrase, "person adversely affected," was not defined in either Presidential Decree No. 807 or the Administrative Code
The LRTA had standing to appeal the modification by the Civil Service Commission of its decision

The employer has the right "to select honest and trustworthy employees." 82 When the government office disciplines an
employee based on causes and procedures allowed by law, it exercises its discretion. This discretion is inherent in the
constitutional principle that "[p]ublic officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives." 83 This is
a principle that can be invoked by the public as well as the government office employing the public officer.

Here, petitioner already decided to dismiss respondent for dishonesty. Dishonesty is a serious offense that challenges the
integrity of the public servant charged. To bar a government office from appealing a decision that lowers the penalty of the
disciplined employee prevents it from ensuring its mandate that the civil service employs only those with the utmost sense
of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

Honesty and integrity are important traits required of those in public service.

Thus, the Commission rules and so holds that the appellant is liable for Dishonesty but applying the aforementioned CSC
Resolution No. 06-0538, her dishonest act would be classified only as Simple Dishonesty as the same did not cause
damage or prejudice to the government and had no direct relation to or did not involve the duties and responsibilities of
the appellant. The same is true with the falsification she committed, where the information falsified was not related to her
employment.97 (Emphasis supplied)

we reaffirmed the oft-repeated rule that findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded not only respect but
also finality when the decision and order . . . are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to abuse of
discretion or lack of jurisdiction. The findings off acts must be respected, so long as they are supported by substantial
evidence even if not overwhelming or preponderant. 100

This court previously ruled that "[f]alsification of an official document, as an administrative offense, is knowingly making
false statements in official or public documents." 101 Respondent, in her defense, states that she merely relied on her
Health Maintenance Organization’s (HMO) advice that it was going to issue her a medical certificate after she had gone to
the hospital complaining of hypertension.102 She maintains that she did not know that her medical certificate was falsified.
We do not find this defense credible.

Respondent knew that she was not examined by Dr. Blanco, the medical certificate’s signatory. She knew that she would
not be able to fully attest to the truthfulness of the information in the certificate. Despite this, she still submitted the
certificate in support of her application for leave.

The Civil Service Commission, however, found that the medical certificate was falsified. Dr. Blanco repudiated the
certificate. Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its validity. Her application for sick leave, therefore, should
not have been granted since it was unaccompanied by the proper documents. The Commission correctly found
respondent guilty of dishonesty.

However, it would be wrong to classify this offense as simple dishonesty.

Given these circumstances, the offense committed can be properly identified as less serious dishonesty. Under Section 4
of Resolution No. 06-0538, less serious dishonesty is classified by the following acts:

Section 4. The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act would
constitute the offense of Less Serious Dishonesty:

a. The dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government which is not so serious as to
qualify under the immediately preceding classification.

b. The respondent did not take advantage of his/her position in committing the dishonest act.

c. Other analogous circumstances. (Emphasis supplied)

We hold, therefore, that respondent Atty. Aurora A. Salvaña is guilty of less serious dishonesty.

If there was evidence to show that petitioner did not, in fact, accept respondent’s resignation, her resignation would have
been ineffective. Respondent’s continued absence from her post would have been deemed abandonment from her office,
of which she could be criminally charged..

Because of her resignation on August 5, 2006, any modification as to the service of her suspension became moot. Her
permanent employment record, however, must reflect the modified penalty. Considering that she is also a member of the
Bar, this court furnishes the Office of the Bar Confidant with a copy of this decision to initiate the proper disciplinary action
against respondent.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision dated November 11, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP.
No. 104225 and Resolution No. 071364 dated July 18, 2007 of the Civil Service Commission is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that respondent, Atty. Aurora A. Salvaña, is found guilty of Less Serious Dishonesty. The Civil Service
Commission is DIRECTED to attach a copy of this decision to respondent's permanent employment record.

Let a copy of this decision be given to the Office of the Bar Confidant to initiate the proper disciplinary action against
respondent Atty. Aurora A. Salvaña.

SO ORDERED.

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN