G.R. No. 158708 - JUSTINA MANIEBO, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, on October 28, 1997, CSCRO No. IV formally charged her with possession of spurious report of rating, falsification, grave misconduct, and dishonesty. On November 7, 1997, the petitioner filed her answer, which CSCRO No. IV considered unsatisfactory. Thus, CSCRO set the case for hearing. During the November 22, 1999 hearing, the Hearing Officer allowed the petitioner to comment verbally or to file her objection to the evidence formally offered against her. Instead, her counsel requested the Hearing Officer to mark her supporting documents as her evidence, and for her to be allowed to testify for herself. In her direct testimony, the petitioner denied knowledge of the falsified nature of her Career Service (Professional) eligibility rating. She asserted that the rating had come from the CSC through the mails. She insisted that she did not on any occasion approach any personnel of the CSC, or anybody else connected with the CSC in order to procure the passing grade of 74.01%. CSCRO No. IV then rendered its decision on December 16, 1999, viz : WHEREFORE, this Office finds respondent Justina Maniebo, Cashier III, Office of the Municipal Treasurer, Municipal Government of Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro, guilty of Possession of Spurious Report of Rating, Falsification, Grave Misconduct. Accordingly, respondent Maniebo is hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service. [3] On February 4, 2000, the petitioner appealed to the CSC, [4] which affirmed the decision of CSCRO No. IV through its Resolution No. 02-0433 dated March 20, 2002, [5] disposing thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of Justina M. Maniebo is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. IV dated December 16, 1999 is AFFIRMED. On August 20, 2002, the petitioner sought reconsideration, but the CSC denied her motion through Resolution No. 02-1028. [6] The petitioner next appealed to the CA. [7] Ruling of the CA In the CA, the petitioner raised the following issues, [8] to wit: a) Whether the CSC committed grave error in not considering good faith on the part of the petitioner in the determination of the appealed decision; and b) Whether the CSC was correct in imposing the penalty of dismissal in view of the circumstances obtaining in the case. She attached to the petition for review the following annexes: a) Certified true copy of CSC Resolution No. 02-1028 dated August 5, 2002 denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Annex A); [9] b) Original copy of the notice of appeal dated August 23, 2002 filed in the CSC (Annex B); [10] c) Photocopy of the petitioner's appeal dated January 31, 2000 to the CSC (Annex C); [11] d) The petitioner's affidavit of merit dated August 2002 (Annex D). [12] In its assailed resolution dated September 5, 2002, [13] the CA dismissed the petition for review due to the petitioner's failure to accompany it with the requisite certified true copies of the mate