MARTIN S. EMIN, PETITIONER, VS. CHAIRMAN CORAZON ALMA G.

DE LEON, COMMISSIONERS THELMA

P. GAMINDE AND RAMON P. ERENETA, JR., OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

CSC has no original jurisdiction over an admin case vs. a public school teacher as jurisdiction is lodged
with the Investigating Committee under Sec. 9 of RA 4670. Still, the SC affirmed dismissal from service of
petitioner for dishonesty (for faking CS eligibilities of certain teachers for a fee) as he was sufficiently
afforded due process by CSC. He answered the charges & participated in hearings. He is barred under
principle of estoppel by laches to impugn CSC jurisdiction

Facts: Appointment papers for a change of status from provisional to permanent under Republic Act No.
6850 of teachers were submitted to the Civil Service Field Office-Cotabato at Amas, Kidapawan, Cotabato
with attached photocopies of certificates of eligibility of the teachers. Although the certificates seemed
authentic, the signatures were forgeries. Upon verification, it was found out that said applications were
disapproved and the certificates although authentic but were never issued to anyone. Two separate
investigations were conducted (1) on how the R.A. 6850 certificates were issued/released from the Office,
and (2) on how the teachers got said certificates. The teachers concerned were asked to report to the
Office and bring the original copies of their certificates of eligibility. The teachers gave their own sworn
statements pointing the petitioner as the person who gave them the R.A. 6850 certificates of eligibility
they had attached to their appointments for a fee. Upon finding a prima facie case, petitioner was formally
charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The petitioner denied the accusations and filed for motion to dismiss but was subsequently denied. Six
teachers cited in the charge sheet were presented as witnesses for prosecution including two other
holders of fake certificates of eligibility. On June 29, 1994, Director Buenaflor submitted a report[5] to the
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission where CSC found sufficient evidence to warrant the conviction
of petitioner. The CSC resolution decreed petitioner guilty of Grave Miscounduct with penalty of dismissal
from service and its accessory penalties. Petitioner filed again for Motion of Reconsideration but the same
was denied. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, but it was subsequently dismissed.
Hence this petition.

Issue: Whether petitioner was accorded due process.

Ruling: Yes.

Petitioner is the Non-Formal Education Supervisor of the DECS, in Kidapawan, Cotabato, in-charge of the
out-of-school programs, and this position is covered by the definition of teacher as provided by R.A. 4670.
The petitioner’s contention that since he is under R.A. 4670, the Investigating Committee should have
investigated his case in conformity with the DECS Rules of Procedure, is correct. However, at this late
hour, the proceedings conducted by the public respondent CSC can no longer be nullified on procedural
grounds. Under the principle of estoppel by laches, petitioner is now barred from impugning the CSC’s
jurisdiction over his case. The Civil Service Commission has afforded the petitioner ample time to defend
and opportunity to be heard in view of the case filed against him and during this time no objections were
raised. Petitioner voluntarily and willfully participated in the proceedings. As held previously, participation
by parties in the administrative proceedings without raising any objection thereto bars them from raising
any jurisdictional infirmity after an adverse decision is rendered against them. In the case at bar, petitioner
raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the first time in his amended petition for review before the CA.
Petitioner’s contention that he was denied due process for he was not allowed for cross examination was
equally unmeritorious. It is well to remember that in administrative proceedings, technical rules of
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated
with due process in its strict judicial sense. Neither is there merit in petitioner’s assertion that he was
denied the right to due process when the CSC Regional Office, according to him, acted as investigator,
prosecutor, judge and executioner. This kind of procedure is not unusual in an administrative proceeding.
It is has to be noted however, that ultimately the Civil Service Chairman was the one who promulgated
the decision.

Lastly, the petitioner contention of admitting the affidavit of Teodorico Cruz as newly discovered evidence
cannot be accepted by court. Newly discovered evidence can only be accepted if the petitioner exercised
reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed
to secure it. It appears that the affidavit was merely an afterthought, a last ditch effort to clear petitioner’s
name.

Hence instant petition is hereby denied and decision of CA is affirmed.