POLITICAL LAW GABRIEL D.

ADORA

DRAFT NO.: 1

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. PETER G. CUTAO

G.R. No. 225151, 30 September 2020, SECOND DIVISION (INTING, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The recall or invalidation of an appointment does not require a full-blown, trial-

type proceeding. In approving or disapproving an appointment, the CSC only examines

the conformity of the appointment with applicable provisions of law and whether the

appointee possesses all the minimum qualifications and none of the disqualifications.

Thus, in contrast to administrative disciplinary actions, a recall does not require notice

and hearing.

An appointment invalidated by the CSCRO, as in the present case, may be

appealed to the CSC Proper. If the parties remain unsatisfied with the outcome, they

may question the CSC Proper's Decision before the CA via Rule 43 of the Rules of

Court. Later on, the CA decision may be reviewed by the Court via a petition for review

on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. That Cutao has taken every available

opportunity to ventilate his defenses and other concerns only means that he has been

sufficiently accorded due process.

FACTS

Peter G. Cutao (Cutao) started in the civil service with the Philippine National

Police (PNP) as POL He was later on promoted to PO3, SPOl, and SPO2. All the
promotions were approved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Cutao

accomplished and submitted his Personal Data Sheet (PDS), indicating that he obtained

a bachelor's degree in criminology from the Agusan Institute of Technology (AIT) in

Butuan City in 1997. He also submitted a copy of his transcript of records from AIT with

the notation “With Special Order (B)(R-X) No. 702-0094 s, 1997 dated December 14,

1997”. Also attached to his application was a Commission on Higher Education (CHED)

Certification, Authorization and Verification (CAV). All these documents contained

signatures which appeared to be those of CHED officials who had verified the course.

In the process of reviewing the documents submitted by Cutao, the CSC Field

Office (CSCFO), Agusan Del Norte, through Meshach D. Dinhayan, Director II, wrote a

Letter to CHED Caraga Administrative Region, through Dr. Isabela L. Mahler, Director

IV, requesting the latter to verify the authenticity of Cutao's transcript and CAV, to which

Dr. Julius Sol O. Jamero, Chief Administrative Officer of CHED Caraga Administrative

Region, responded to the query, through a verification slip, by indicating that the

documents sought to be verified were "not authentic," giving the following reasons: first,

the signatures of the CHED personnel appearing on the CAY submitted were not

genuine. Second, Special Order (B)(R-X) No. 702-0094 does not reflect Cutao's name.

In this regard, the CHED attached a file copy of the same Special Order referred to in

Cutao's transcript, showing that the document was issued for purposes of approving the

eligibility for graduation of one Bernardo F. Dela Cruz, and confirming that he had

completed the requirements to obtain a bachelor's degree from AIT—and not Cutao.
 On the basis of such verification, the CSCRO concluded that the approval of

Cutao's promotional appointments was "not in order" for lack of the requisite educational

qualification at the time of appointment. Thus, through Adams D. Torres, Director IV, the

CSCRO issued Decision No. LSD-NDC-12-006, recalling the approval of Cutao's

promotional appointments, to be implemented by urging the relevant Police Chief

Superintendent to issue an order reverting Cutao to his original position prior to all

promotions and adjust his compensation accordingly, once the decision becomes final.

Cutao appealed such decision to the CSC Proper, which gave more weight to

CHED’s declaration and dismissed Cutao's appeal and upheld the invalidation of the

subject promotional appointments. It explained that CSC Resolution No. 02- 128825

dated October 8, 2002 lists a bachelor's degree as among the qualification requirements

for the positions PO3, SPOl, and SPO2. Inasmuch as CHED already declared that the

transcript and CAV submitted by Cutao were not authentic, it follows that he does not

possess the requisite educational attainment for the higher positions. Cutao filed a

Motion for Reconsideration, maintaining that discrepancies in his school records are

"beyond his control" and "not his fault.” This was also denied for for failure to proffer

new evidence or cite errors of law that would justify a revision, modification, or reversal

of its assailed ruling.

Aggrieved, Cutao elevated the case to the CA, which reversed the CSC’s rulings.

It held that Cutao had already acquired a legal right to the office, having served in the

government as a member of the PNP for seven years. In that time, he was led to
believe by the CSC that his appointments were regular in all material respects. Further,

it is not his fault, but of AIT’s, that his documents turned out to be inauthentic. Hence, he

is in good faith. As held in Obiasca v. Basallote, an appointment to civil service must be

upheld, despite procedural lapses, if these were beyond the civil servant's control and

not of his own making. Given these considerations, Cutao was duly qualified for the

position and eventually "became a permanent-status civil servant." Thus, he must be

accorded due process—consisting of notice and hearing—before his appointments

could be recalled, and him removed from office.

CSC moved for reconsideration arguing that Cutao was not dismissed, that his

appointments were merely recalled. Thus, there is no need for notice and hearing in

accordance with the CSC rules, but the aggrieved party is not precluded from appealing

the case or moving for reconsideration. This was denied by the CA, explaining that

while the CSC has power to recall appointments, it may only exercise it based on

specific grounds and therefore CSC carries the burden of proving that Cutao violated

existing civil service laws or regulations and that fraud attended his appointments. The

CA further held that to recall the appointments without notice and hearing would violate

all norms of fair play and equity. Hence, CSC filed the present petition.

ISSUE

May the CSC recall a previously approved appointment to civil service without

prior notice and hearing?

YES. It is well-settled that the CSC's authority "to take appropriate action on all

appointments and other personnel actions" includes the power "to recall an appointment

initially approved, if later on found to be in disregard of applicable provisions of the Civil

Service law and regulations."

The recall or invalidation of an appointment does not require a full-blown, trial-

type proceeding. "In approving or disapproving an appointment, the CSC only examines

the conformity of the appointment with applicable provisions of law and whether the

appointee possesses all the minimum qualifications and none of the disqualifications."

Thus, in contrast to administrative disciplinary actions, a recall does not require notice

and hearing. The essence of due process is the right to be heard. Thus, a party can be

accorded due process through means other than a notice or hearing.

Further, since Cutao availed himself of remedial measures such as an appeal to

the CSC proper, a subsequent appeal to the CA via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, and

this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, he has already

been sufficiently accorded due process having taken every available opportunity to

ventilate his defenses and other concerns.

appointments is justified. When the CSC recalled his promotional appointments for not

meeting the qualification standard, it was merely performing its recognized duty of

ensuring "that the appointee has all the qualifications for the position." If it finds that the

appointee does not "possess the appropriate eligibility or required qualification," it is

duty-bound to disapprove his appointment.

The CSC properly relied on the CHED certification expressly declaring the

subject documents as inauthentic for the following reasons: First, the certification is

presumed to have been accomplished in the regular performance of CHED's official

functions. It must be upheld absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary. Second,

it was based on CHED's independent evaluation and supported by official documents.

That it was embodied in a proforma verification slip did not diminish its credibility and

veracity. Third, there is nothing on the records of the case clearly establishing that

Cutao obtained a bachelor's degree. Verily, Cutao presented letters from the AIT

registrar stating that he was enrolled in AIT from 1994 to 1997 and that he had complied

with the requirements for graduation. If he was able to obtain the letters, he should have

also been capable of simply requesting the university to issue a copy of his official

transcript of records and diploma to once and for all remove any doubt clouding his

educational attainment. But he did not. This only leads to the inescapable conclusion

that he does not have a bachelor's degree in criminology from AIT as he claims.
 Lastly, while Cutao's appointments were initially approved by the CSC and that

he has been in position for six years, this does not preclude the CSC from reviewing his

appointments and disapproving them if the appointee is eventually found ineligible to

occupy such office. The fundamental rule is that "appointments in the civil service shall

be made only according to merit and fitness.” As his promotional appointments violated

the qualification standards set for the positions of PO3, SPOl , and SPO3, these were

all null and void ab initio. Being void ab initio, his appointment cannot ripen into a vested

right to office. Thus, the Court cannot allow Cutao to hold office merely on the basis of

good faith or the sheer length of time spent therein. Otherwise, the Court would be

condoning the entrance of unqualified individuals to government service.