457 Phil. 452
PER CURIAM:
That in support of your appointment as Senior Livelihood Officer, National Housing Authority, Quezon City, you submitted a xerox copy of your alleged Certificate of Eligibility (CS Professional) purporting that you passed the July 30, 1989 Career Service Examination. However, after verification from the masterlist of eligibles, it was found out that you failed the said examination with a rating of 40.96%.[1]After hearing, respondent was held guilty of the charges against her. In a resolution dated January 5, 1995, petitioner ruled:
After a careful evaluation of the records, we find substantial evidence which proved the commission by the herein respondent of the offense charged against her.Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed with this court a Petition for Certiorari on March 29, 1995.[3] We referred the petition to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition in a Resolution dated April 4, 1995,[4] where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 36978.[5] Pursuant to our ruling in the case Dennis Lazo v. Civil Service Commission,[6] the appellate court ordered petitioner to retrieve and submit the answer sheets of respondent. Its Management Information Office, however, stated that the answer sheets have already been disposed of in accordance with CSC Resolution No. 87-070 which directs the "destruction or disposal of answer sheets of examinees who passed in the Civil Service examinations... after five (5) years from the date of the release of examination."[7]
WHEREFORE, Evelyn P. Cayobit is found guilty of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. Accordingly, the penalty of dismissal from the service with the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification from taking any civil service examination and disqualification from holding public office are (sic) imposed on her.[2]
In fine, there was no substantial evidence to prove that petitioner committed the offenses leveled against her.It likewise denied for lack of merit petitioner's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution promulgated on October 12, 2000.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the impugned CSC Resolution No. 95-0111 is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.[8]
That the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was no substantial evidence to prove that respondent committed the offense of dishonesty and grave misconduct.We will first decide the second issue as our resolution of whether the masterlist of eligibles is the primary record of civil service eligibles is crucial in determining the innocence or guilt of the respondent. In this regard, petitioner argues that the masterlist of eligibles must be considered the primary record of eligibility for this is the official record it keeps pursuant to both its constitutional and statutory mandates to conduct and safeguard civil service examinations. We agree.
That the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that the masterlist of eligibles is not the primary record of civil service eligibles.[9]
Sec. 23. Release of Examination Results.-- The results of any particular service examination held in a number of places on the same date shall be released simultaneously.The implementing rules of the Code similarly provides, viz:
Sec. 24. Register of Eligibles.-- The names of the competitors who pass an examination shall be entered in a register of eligibles arranged in the order of their general ratings and containing such information as the Commission may deem necessary.[10]
Sec. 5. The results of any particular civil service examination held in a number of places on the same date shall be held simultaneously. The names of examinees who obtained the required passing grades in an examination shall be entered in a register of eligibles.[11]Pursuant to the foregoing provisions, petitioner prepares and keeps the masterlist of eligibles, which is the list of all examinees who passed and failed a given examination. It contains their complete names, the general rating they obtained and other relevant personal information such as their places and dates of birth, and their home addresses.[12]
It has been the constitutional (Paragraph (2), Section 2 and Section 3(B), Article IX, 1987 Philippine Constitution) and statutory (Paragraphs (7) and (8), Section 12, Chapter III, Subtitle A, Title I of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987) mandate of the CSC, being the central personnel agency of the government, to conduct and safeguard civil service examinations, and as a necessary incident thereof, issue and keep Certificates of Eligibility to qualified examinees to a particular CS Examination, on the basis of its own record.[13] (emphases supplied.)We therefore hold the masterlist to be the primary record of eligibles. It is the list officially prepared and kept by the petitioner pursuant to its constitutional and statutory mandates. It is what petitioner utilizes to verify the eligibility of applicants in government service. If we consider the certificate, as held by the appellate court, to be the primary record of one's eligibility, there will be no way by which petitioner can countercheck the veracity of the entries therein. In effect, petitioner will be left without a process of corroborating the eligibility of applicants for government positions with permanent status. Government offices would be bound to accept a certificate as conclusive and incontestable, without any means of validation, notwithstanding that the certificate may have been spuriously manufactured or that an item therein may have been erroneously or irregularly entered. This is dangerous especially considering the fact that the high level of technological advancement can make easy the forgery and counterfeiting of these certificates.
An act which includes the procurement and/or use of fake/spurious civil service eligibility, the giving of assistance to ensure the commission or procurement of the same, cheating, collusion, impersonation, or any other anomalous act which amounts to any violation of the Civil Service examination, has been categorized as a grave offense of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. (emphasis supplied.)The question therefore is whether there is substantial evidence to hold that respondent procured and used a fake or spurious certificate of eligibility. We hold that there is.
Sec. 44. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty especially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.Respondent failed to explain the discrepancy in her grades appearing in the masterlist and her certificate of eligibility. She was not able to offer proof that the score indicated in her certificate was due to the error or mistake of petitioner's own personnel. In fact, she did not even get a certification from petitioner that her certificate was issued by it.
The testimonies of the three (3) abovementioned witnesses failed to rebut the fact that Cayobit did not pass the examination and does not have an eligibility. Respondent also failed to prove that she had no participation in the procurement of eligibility. Hence it cannot be presumed that Cayobit used the fake eligibility in good faith.[18]In fine, we hold that the evidence presented by petitioner is substantial to support a finding that respondent is guilty of the offense charged against her. The established facts lead us to accept the conclusion that she indeed procured and used a fake or spurious certificate of eligibility and, in accordance with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 1991, committed dishonesty and grave misconduct. It bears stressing that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is only substantial.[19] It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.[20] The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct,[21] even if the evidence might not be overwhelming.[22]