G.R. No. 225151 , September 30, 2020
Civil Service Commission, Petitioner, vs. Peter G. Cutao, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Peter G. Cutao started in the civil service with the Philippine National Police (PNP) and was promoted to Police Officer (PO) III, Senior Police Officer (SPO) I, and SPO II, with all promotions approved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). For his promotion to SPO2, Cutao submitted his Personal Data Sheet indicating he obtained a Bachelor of Science in Criminology from the Agusan Institute of Technology (AIT) in 1997, along with a transcript of records and a Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Certification, Authorization and Verification (CAV). The CSC Field Office requested CHED to verify the authenticity of these documents. CHED Caraga Administrative Region, through Chief Administrative Officer Dr. Julius Sol O. Jamero, verified that the documents were “not authentic” because the signatures of CHED personnel on the CAV were not genuine, and the Special Order number referenced in Cutao’s transcript was issued for another person, Bernardo F. Dela Cruz, not for Cutao. Based on this, the CSC Regional Office issued a Decision recalling the approval of Cutao’s promotional appointments for lack of the requisite educational qualification. The CSC Proper upheld this decision, dismissing Cutao’s appeal and motion for reconsideration, giving more weight to CHED’s declaration over subsequent certifications from AIT submitted by Cutao. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC’s rulings, holding that the CHED verification slip did not constitute substantial evidence, that Cutao had acquired a legal right to the office after seven years of service, that he was in good faith relying on documents issued by AIT, and that he was entitled to due process before his appointments could be recalled.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Civil Service Commission’s decision to recall the approval of Peter G. Cutao’s promotional appointments for failure to meet the educational qualification requirement.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the CSC Resolution No. 1300213 which upheld the recall of Cutao’s promotional appointments.
The Court held that the CSC did not violate Cutao’s right to due process. The recall of an appointment’s approval is not a disciplinary action but an administrative function to ensure appointments comply with legal requirements. A formal hearing is not required for such recall. The CSC’s action was based on a verification process initiated to confirm Cutao’s qualifications.
On the merits, the Court ruled that Cutao failed to prove he possessed the required bachelor’s degree for the positions of PO3, SPO1, and SPO2 at the time of his promotions. The qualification standards, which include a bachelor’s degree, are mandatory. The CHED’s official verification, declaring his transcript and CAV as not authentic and showing the Special Order was issued for another person, constituted substantial evidence that he did not meet the educational requirement. The subsequent certifications from AIT officials could not prevail over the direct and official findings of CHED, the government agency tasked with verifying educational credentials. Cutao’s claim of good faith and his years of service do not cure the fundamental defect of lacking the prescribed eligibility for promotion. The government cannot be estopped by the mistake of its agents in initially approving the appointments when the appointee does not possess the required qualifications. Therefore, the CSC correctly recalled the approval of his promotional appointments.