Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

REYES, NESTOR C. ADM. CASE NO.

TABAGO, ALEX A.
Petitioners,

-versus- For:
Examination Irregularities;
CIVIL SERVICE Dishonesty; Grave Misconduct &
COMMISSION, Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to
Respondent. the Best Interest of the Service.
x----------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

PETITIONERS, by counsel to this Honorable Court most

respectfully submit the foregoing;

NATURE OF PETITION

This is a PETITION FOR REVIEW under Rule 43 of the 1997

Rules on Civil Procedure on the Decision of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC for brevity) dated January 27, 2017 and Resolution
of the CSC resolving the Motion For Reconsideration filed by herein
petitioners.
THE PARTIES

PETITIONER Nestor C. Reyes is an Administrative Officer 1 of

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in
Batanes Provincial Office. While PETITIONER Alex A. Tabago is an
employee from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in Batanes
Provincial Office.

RESPONDENT CSC is a government agency with responsibility

over civil service, tasked with overseeing the integrity of the
government actions and processes, and with principal address at CSC
Building, IBP Road, Batasan Hills, 112 Quezon City.

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION AND STATEMENT OF

MATERIAL DATES

1
 PETITIONERS, on February 16, 2017 received the questioned
Decision promulgated by the CSC Regional Office II on January 27,
2017. And within the period prescribed by law, Petitioners filed a
Motion for Reconsideration dated February 22, 2017. This was denied
by the CSC thru its resolution promulgated on April 24, 2019 which
the petitioners received on May 3, 2019.

That on this day, or on due time, and within the period allowed
by the Rules to file a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioners filed this instant Petition for
Review and corresponding (a) Court’s Docket, legal and research fees,
and the necessary (b) Deposit for costs has been paid by the
petitioners, under Official Receipt No. .

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE

Records would bear the following:

To facilitate the smooth flow of Civil Service Commission-

Computer Assisted Test (CSC-CAT), Petitioners were tapped to assist
the CSC Specialist tasked to administer the said examination. Their
rather innocently service driven acts had unexpectedly drawn them to
a perilous legal battle when they were wantonly accused of
committing irregularities during the examination proper.

For no fault of the petitioners, the case was unreasonably

dragged for years. Despite ample time and opportunity, the
prosecution failed to present the Private Complainant. Without
sufficient excuse, she never appeared to identify her affidavit and
confirm the truthfulness of her allegations.

Interestingly, this case, which started sometime in 1997, has not

only took a long journey, but also had a very bizarre and conflicting
decisions. The Civil Service Commission Regional Office II (CSCRO-
II) made a finding that Petitioners were only liable for Conduct
Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and just
imposed a penalty of suspension for eight (8) months. Surprisingly,
the Commission under the guise of Petition for Review meted them
with the penalty of dismissal from service.

2
 Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration against the
Decision of the Commission. However, it was denied in its Resolution
dated April 24, 2019. Hence, the instant petition.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

PETITIONERS, conformably to the nature of the instant Petition and

out of the issues taken, hereby present the following ground in
support of and relied upon for the allowance of the same:

I.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS
RESOLUTION FINDING THE PETITIONERS GUILTY OF
THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF WITHOUT PROOF OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

II.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION’S ORDER OF DISMISSAL
VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEED RIGHT
OF THE PETITIONERS THAT AN EMPLOYEE CAN ONLY
BE REMOVED FOR A JUST CAUSE.

DISCUSSION

I.

The general rule in administrative proceedings is that the

practical burden of proof usually falls to the prosecution because they
are the source of information on which a proceeding has been
constituted. Such proof must make it possible for the tribunal to find,
from the whole of the evidence and on the balance of probabilities,
the facts that are fundamental to a claim. This is encapsulated in the
adage, “he who asserts, or seeks a result, must prove”.

Stressing the cardinal rule that he who alleges has the burden of
proving his allegation, the appreciation of this instant case must look
upon the adequacy of the stand of the prosecution. Thus, the
Commission has the duty to dismiss the charge hurled against
Petitioner the moment the prosecution fails to substantially prove its
allegation.

3
 Moreover, it is established that any administrative complaint
leveled against any public officer, must always be examined with a
discriminating eye, for its consequential effects may in the long run
creates adverse consequences. The relaxation of the rules in
administrative case cannot be apprehended to non-observance of
Constitutional mandates.

In this particular case, the Petitioners were indicted for

Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service. Being charged of such offense, however, does
not necessarily mean that they could immediately be adjudged guilty
thereof. It is still the duty of the prosecution to establish with
certainty and by substantial evidence that the Petitioners really
committed the acts complained of. Jurisprudence dictates that
reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave
an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based
on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.1

II.

Section 2 (3), Article IX-B states that, “ no officer or employee

of the civil service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as
provided by law”.

1 Mikcrostar Industrial Corporation vs. Mabalot, A.M No. P-05-2097, December 15, 2005.
4