GR 182606; (October, 2011) (Digest)

G.R. No. 182606; December 4, 2011
CESAR S. DUMDUMA, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Cesar S. Dumduma, a Senior Police Officer 4 (SPO4) of the Philippine National Police (PNP), filled out a Personal Data Sheet (PDS) on March 7, 1999, for his promotional appointment as Police Inspector. In Item No. 18, he stated he passed the Career Service Professional Examination Computer-Assisted Test in Quezon City on December 15, 1998, with a rating of 81%. His appointment was forwarded to the PNP-CSC Field Office for verification, where it was discovered his name was not in the CSC-National Capital Region (NCR) Regional Register of Eligibles for that exam. Instead, his name appeared in the Regional List of Passing/Failing Examinees with a rating of 25.82%. Consequently, the CSC-NCR Director disapproved his appointment on the ground of spurious eligibility and formally charged him with Dishonesty.
Dumduma denied the charge. He claimed that before the exam, a retired CSC director, Salome Dilodilo, promised him support in exchange for a personal favor. They went to a CSC office together before the exam. After taking the test, he did not receive his result immediately (contrary to standard procedure) but received a Certificate of Eligibility a week later from an emissary of Dilodilo, stating he passed with 81%. He asserted he filled out his PDS in good faith based on this certificate. He waived formal investigation.
The CSC-NCR found the certificate spurious, as the official Regional List prevails. His procurement and use of a spurious certificate constituted Dishonesty, warranting dismissal. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed, finding his version implausible as certificates are typically issued immediately after the exam, and he failed to rebut the presumption that the possessor of a falsified document is its author. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Civil Service Commission’s finding that petitioner Cesar S. Dumduma is guilty of Dishonesty warranting dismissal from service.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decisions. The Court held that the question raised by Dumduma regarding the appreciation of evidence is factual and beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari, especially since the CSC and CA findings are concurrent. The Court agreed with the lower bodies that the evidence clearly establishes dishonesty.
The undisputed facts show Dumduma’s claim of eligibility was contradicted by the official CSC Register of Eligibles and List of Passing/Failing Examinees, which are presumed correct. It became incumbent upon him to explain the incorrect PDS entry. His explanation—involving assistance from a retired official, an irregular issuance of a certificate, and receipt of the document from an emissary—did not exculpate him but instead completed the evidence against him. His bare assertion of good faith and lack of direct evidence of collusion with CSC personnel were insufficient to overcome the presumption that the holder and beneficiary of a falsified document is the author of the falsification. His actions constituted Dishonesty, a grave offense warranting the penalty of dismissal from service with its accessory penalties.