G.R. No. 255286 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, VS. EPIFANY ALONZO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, reinstated the Petition. It likewise ordered Alonzo to file his Comment to the Petition within 10 days from notice. The Issue Before the Court The issue before the Court is whether the CA committed reversible error in nullifying the formal charge against Alonzo, as well as the order for his dismissal. The CSC argues that it validly acquired jurisdiction over Alonzo and it is not bound by the decision of the NAPOLCOM exonerating the latter from administrative liability. Particularly, it contends that, first , the charges of serious dishonesty, falsification of official (public) documents, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against Alonzo were made in relation to his civil service eligibility, particularly in connection with his promotion, and not to the performance of his duties and functions as a member of the PNP. [43] Second , its appellate power will only apply when the subject of the administrative case filed against the erring employee is in connection with the duties and functions of their office, not in cases where the acts of the employee arose from cheating in the civil service examination or, as in this case, from the requirements for his promotion. [44] Third , under Book V, Title I (A), Section 12, par. 11 of Executive Order No. 292 (or the Administrative Code of 1987), the CSC has the duty, authority, and power to uphold the merit system and protect the civil service from persons who are unqualified by removing from its master list of eligible candidates those who have falsified their requirements, forged their qualifications, and have questionable integrity. [45] Lastly , its findings are entitled to great weight and respect by the Court especially since they are supported by substantial evidence. [46] Anent its findings on Alonzo's administrative liability, the CSC argues that its findings were based on documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the officials of ACC which showed that Alonzo is not a graduate of AB Economics from ACC. According to the CSC, Alonzo's act of making it appear that he is an AB Economics graduate from ACC when in fact he is not, prejudiced other more qualified applicants who could have been promoted or employed had it not been for his misrepresentations. His act of intentionally misrepresenting his qualifications and making false entries in official documents for the promotion constitutes serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, for which he was properly held administratively liable. Thus, the administrative charges hurled against Alonzo pertain to his character, and not to the position he held. [47] In his Manifestation/Comment, [48] adopting by reference the arguments in his Petition for Review, [49] as well as his Motion for Reconsideration [50] filed before the CA, Alonzo claims that the Decision of the NAPOLCOM exonerated him for the charge of dishonesty on the ground that there is no evidence showing that his TOR was