GR 178630; (November, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178630, November 27, 2012
Rosa F. Mercado, Petitioner, vs. Commission on Higher Education, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rosa F. Mercado, a CHED employee, was initially found guilty of discourtesy and reprimanded. She filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching a Resolution allegedly issued by former CHED Chairman Angel Alcala and an Affidavit of Desistance from the complainant, Ma. Luisa Dimayuga, to support dismissal of the complaint. CHED, suspecting these documents were falsified, initiated a new investigation. The Hearing and Investigating Committee found strong indications the documents were not genuine, noting Dimayuga testified she never signed any desistance and CHED had no record of the Alcala Resolution. Mercado failed to appear at the investigation hearings. Consequently, CHED found her guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the service, and falsification, and dismissed her.
Mercado appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC initially affirmed but, upon her motion for reconsideration, reversed itself and ordered reinstatement. The CSC based its reversal on new evidence Mercado submitted only on appeal: PNP Questioned Document Reports opining the signatures on the disputed documents were genuine. CHED appealed this CSC reversal to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reinstated CHED’s dismissal order. Mercado filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration at the CA, which was denied. She then appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying Mercado’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and in affirming her dismissal based on the administrative charges.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. On procedure, the CA correctly denied the motion for leave as the attached motion for reconsideration lacked merit, rendering the leave unnecessary. On the substantive dismissal, the Court upheld CHED’s finding of guilt. Administrative due process was satisfied as Mercado was given the opportunity to be heard through formal charges and hearing notices, which she chose not to attend by her absence. The evidence against her was substantial.
The PNP reports submitted belatedly to the CSC were correctly disregarded. Under CSC rules, new evidence on appeal must be evidence that could not have been discovered and produced during the investigation with reasonable diligence. Mercado offered no justification for her failure to present this alleged expert evidence during the CHED investigation, where the authenticity of the documents was the core issue. Her failure to explain this lapse meant the evidence was not newly discovered. Therefore, the CSC’s reliance on it was a reversible error, correctly rectified by the CA. The CHED’s findings, based on the complainant’s testimony and official record checks, stand as supported by substantial evidence.