G.R. No. 203536 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, VS. MARIA RIZA G. VERGEL DE DIOS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the appeal of Maria Riza G. Vergel de Dios, former Public Relations Officer A, San Rafael Water District, San Rafael, Bulacan, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated August 26, 2008 rendered by the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. III, San Fernando City, Pampanga finding her guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Falsification of Official Document and imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service including its accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, disqualification from taking future civil service examinations and perpetual disqualification from re-entering the government service, is hereby AFFIRMED. [8] The CSC agreed with its Regional Office that (1) the Vergel de Dios in the picture seat plan is not the same Vergel de Dios whose picture is pasted in the personal data sheet and (2) the signatures appearing therein pertain to different individuals. [9] The CSC added: The submitted documents show that the picture of Vergel de Dios as affixed in the [personal data sheet] is obviously not the Maria Riza G. Vergel de Dios whose picture appears on the [picture seat plan]. This may be seen in the discrepancies in her facial features specifically the size of her head, the prominence of the forehead, shape of her eyebrows, the difference of the full-face view, the projection of the nose, the round shape of the face and the forehead, among others. Moreover, the signatures of the respondent as affixed in the Picture Seat Plan (PSP) reflects a glaring difference to the signature affixed in her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) accomplished on February 27, 2001. Such difference in the manner by which the respective signatures were done clearly shows that they were made by two different persons. [10] In its Resolution No. 100728 [11] dated April 12, 2010, the CSC denied respondents motion for reconsideration. In its Decision dated October 20, 2011, the CA dismissed respondents petition for review and agreed with the findings of the CSC. The fallo of the CA decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Resolution Nos. 091721 and 100728 dated 11 December 2009 and 12 April 2010, respectively, of the Civil Service Commission are hereby AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED . [12] On reconsideration, the CA issued the assailed Amended Decision dated March 21, 2012 which set aside its Decision dated October 20, 2011 and reversed the CSC resolutions, to wit: WHEREFORE , the earlier Decision of this Court dated 20 October 2011 is hereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered GRANTING the instant petition. Resolution No. 091721 dated 11 December 2009 and Resolution No. 100728, both issued by the Civil Service Commission, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED . [13] While the CA recognized the CSCs strict procedures to ensure the integrity of its examinations, the CA said that there is no showing that tho