Civil Service Commission vs. Peter G. Cutao

The Civil Service Commission may recall a previously approved appointment to civil service without prior notice and hearing, because the recall or invalidation of an appointment is a non-disciplinary action that does not require a full-blown, trial-type proceeding. A void appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure on the part of the holder of such appointment much less ripen into a vested right to office, and the appointee's good faith or length of time in the position does not cure the lack of the requisite qualifications.

The Civil Service Commission is the constitutional body tasked with ensuring that appointments in the civil service are made only according to merit and fitness, and it possesses the statutory authority to take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel actions. Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the invalidation or disapproval of an appointment is classified as a non-disciplinary case, governed by Rule 16, which provides for a remedial procedure distinct from that applicable to administrative disciplinary actions. The qualification standards for positions in the career service, including educational requirements, are established pursuant to Book V of Executive Order No. 292, and the 1987 Constitution mandates that appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness.

Peter G. Cutao began his civil service career with the Philippine National Police as PO1 and was later promoted to PO3, SPO1, and SPO2, with all promotions approved by the Civil Service Commission. As part of the documentary requirements for applying for promotion to SPO2, Cutao accomplished and submitted his Personal Data Sheet indicating that he obtained a bachelor's degree in criminology from the Agusan Institute of Technology in Butuan City in 1997. He also submitted a copy of his transcript of records from AIT bearing a notation that he graduated from the Four Year Course in Criminology leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Criminology as of October 20, 1996, with Special Order (B)(R-X) No. 702-0094 s. 1997 dated December 14, 1997. Attached to his application was a Commission on Higher Education Certification, Authorization and Verification (CAV) (R-XIII) No. A-417, Series 2007, dated May 28, 2007, certifying the signatures on his transcript and diploma and that the Bachelor of Science in Criminology offered at AIT was duly authorized by the government.

In the process of reviewing Cutao's documents, the CSC Field Office, Agusan Del Norte, through Director II Meshach D. Dinhayan, wrote a Letter dated February 16, 2011 to CHED Caraga Administrative Region requesting verification of the authenticity of Cutao's transcript and CAV. On June 30, 2011, Dr. Julius Sol O. Jamero, Chief Administrative Officer of CHED Caraga Administrative Region, responded by filling out the pro forma verification slip at the lower portion of the Letter and returning it to the CSCFO, ticking the box indicating that the documents were "not authentic." The reasons given were: first, the signatures of the CHED personnel appearing on the CAV submitted were not genuine; and second, Special Order (B)(R-X) No. 702-0094 s. 1997 dated December 14, 1997 does not reflect Cutao's name. CHED attached a file copy of the same Special Order showing that the document was issued for purposes of approving the eligibility for graduation of one Bernardo F. Dela Cruz, not Cutao.

Based on the results of the CSCFO's verification, the CSCRO concluded that the approval of Cutao's promotional appointments was "not in order" for lack of the requisite educational qualification at the time of appointment. Through Director IV Adams D. Torres, the CSCRO issued Decision No. LSD-NDC-12-006 dated January 19, 2012, recalling the approval of Cutao's promotional appointments, without prejudice to the filing of an administrative complaint against him for Dishonesty and/or Falsification of Public Document. The CSCRO also wrote to Police Chief Superintendent Reynaldo Serrano Rafal, Director of PNP Regional Office No. XIII, urging him to issue an order reverting Cutao to his original position prior to all promotions and adjusting his compensation accordingly.

Cutao appealed to the CSC Proper, which dismissed his appeal and upheld the invalidation of the subject promotional appointments, explaining that CSC Resolution No. 02-1288 dated October 8, 2002 lists a bachelor's degree as among the qualification requirements for the positions PO3, SPO1, and SPO2. The CSC Proper gave more weight to CHED's declaration over Cutao's submissions, which included a certification issued by the AIT Registrar dated February 23, 2012, stating that he had graduated from the Four-Year Course in Criminology. In his Motion for Reconsideration, Cutao insisted that he graduated and obtained his bachelor's degree in Criminology from AIT, and that the discrepancies in his school records were "beyond his control" and "not his fault." He submitted additional documents: a Letter dated October 22, 2012 of AIT Registrar Maria Delia M. Labado praying for understanding and requesting time to prove that Cutao graduated; a Letter dated October 23, 2012 of Labado stating that Cutao was enrolled from 1994 up to 1997 and that they were re-applying to re-check the form of Cutao in the issuance of Special Order; a Letter dated June 21, 2012 issued by Labado, attested by AIT Dean Elison O. Tacasan and President Shirely T. Lim, certifying under oath that Cutao has fully complied with the requirements for graduation as of October 1996; and Enrollment Forms of Cutao for the summer of 1994, first and second semester of 1994-1995, and first semester of 1996. The CSC Proper denied his motion, finding the documents inconclusive as these do not controvert the CHED declaration that his transcript and CAV are not authentic.

Cutao elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the CSC violated his constitutional right to due process when the CSCRO promulgated Decision No. LSD-NDC-12-006. The CA overturned the CSC's rulings, holding: first, the CHED-accomplished verification slip did not amount to substantial evidence; second, Cutao has served in the government as a member of the PNP for seven years and "has already acquired a legal right to the office"; third, Cutao was in good faith, and that his documents turned out to be inauthentic was not his fault but that of AIT; and fourth, Cutao was duly qualified for the position and eventually "became a permanent[-]status civil servant," thus he must be accorded due process consisting of notice and hearing before his appointments could be recalled. The CSC moved for reconsideration, arguing that Cutao's appointments were merely recalled, not dismissed, and that the present controversy is a "non-disciplinary" case where the CSC rules do not require notice and hearing. The CA denied the motion, explaining that while the CSC has power to recall appointments, it may only exercise it based on specific grounds, and that the CSC bore the burden of proving that Cutao violated existing civil service laws or regulations and that fraud attended his appointments.

• Authority to Recall Appointments: The CSC argued that its authority to take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel actions includes the power to recall an appointment initially approved if later found to be in disregard of applicable provisions of the Civil Service law and regulations.
• Non-Disciplinary Nature of Recall: The CSC maintained that the recall or invalidation of an appointment does not require a full-blown, trial-type proceeding, and that in contrast to administrative disciplinary actions, a recall does not require notice and hearing.
• Remedial Measures as Due Process: The CSC argued that the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides for a remedial procedure applicable specifically to non-disciplinary cases, such as a recall or invalidation of appointment, and that Cutao availed himself of these remedial measures, which satisfied due process.
• CHED Certification as Substantial Evidence: The CSC contended that it properly relied on the CHED certification expressly declaring the subject documents as inauthentic, as the certification is presumed to have been accomplished in the regular performance of CHED's official functions and must be upheld absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary.
• Void Appointment and Security of Tenure: The CSC argued that Cutao's promotional appointments violated the qualification standards set for the positions and were all null and void ab initio, and that a void appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure on the part of the holder of such appointment much less ripen into a vested right to office.

• Due Process Violation: Cutao argued that the CSC violated his constitutional right to due process when the CSCRO promulgated Decision No. LSD-NDC-12-006 without prior notice and hearing.
• Substantial Evidence: Cutao maintained that the CHED-accomplished verification slip relied upon by the CSC in recalling his promotional appointments did not amount to substantial evidence, the burden of proof required in administrative cases.
• Acquired Legal Right to Office: Cutao argued that he has served in the government as a member of the PNP for seven years and has already acquired a legal right to the office, as the CSC, in initially approving his promotions, led him to believe that his appointments were regular in all material respects.
• Good Faith: Cutao contended that he was in good faith, that his documents turning out to be inauthentic was not his fault but that of AIT, and that he relied on the TOR and CAV issued by the AIT and was led to believe that he was duly qualified to apply for those positions.
• Permanent Status and Due Process: Cutao argued that he was duly qualified for the position and eventually became a permanent-status civil servant, thus he must be accorded due process consisting of notice and hearing before his appointments could be recalled and him removed from office.

• Recall Without Notice and Hearing: Whether the CSC may recall a previously approved appointment to civil service without prior notice and hearing.
• Validity of the Recall: Whether the CSC's recall of Cutao's promotional appointments was justified given the CHED declaration that his documents were inauthentic.

• Recall Without Notice and Hearing: Yes. The recall or invalidation of an appointment does not require a full-blown, trial-type proceeding, and in contrast to administrative disciplinary actions, a recall does not require notice and hearing. The essence of due process is the right to be heard, and a party can be accorded due process through means other than a notice or hearing, such as the remedial procedure provided in the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
• Validity of the Recall: Yes. The CSC properly relied on the CHED certification expressly declaring the subject documents as inauthentic, and Cutao failed to present an official transcript of records and diploma to prove his educational attainment. His promotional appointments violated the qualification standards set for the positions and were all null and void ab initio.

• Recall Without Notice and Hearing: The Court explained that the CSC's authority to take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel actions includes the power to recall an appointment initially approved if later found to be in disregard of applicable provisions of the Civil Service law and regulations. In approving or disapproving an appointment, the CSC only examines the conformity of the appointment with applicable provisions of law and whether the appointee possesses all the minimum qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Thus, in contrast to administrative disciplinary actions, a recall does not require notice and hearing. The essence of due process is the right to be heard, and a party can be accorded due process through means other than a notice or hearing. The Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides for a remedial procedure applicable specifically to non-disciplinary cases, such as a recall or invalidation of appointment, under Rule 16, Sections 77 and 78. It is not disputed that Cutao availed himself of these remedial measures, and even after obtaining a favorable decision from the CA, he was allowed to file his comment on the present petition. That he has taken every available opportunity to ventilate his defenses and other concerns only means that he has been sufficiently accorded due process.
• Validity of the Recall: The Court found the CSC's recall or invalidation of the subject promotional appointments to be justified. Cutao submitted his TOR and CAV as part of his application for promotion to show that he obtained a college degree from AIT, a qualification standard for the SPO2 position. Upon the CSCFO's request, the CHED declared the documents as inauthentic. The lack of other documents showing his educational attainment led the CSC to conclude that Cutao did not hold the bachelor's degree required not only for the position of SPO2, but also for SPO1 and PO3. When the CSC recalled his promotional appointments for not meeting the qualification standard, it was merely performing its recognized duty of ensuring that the appointee has all the qualifications for the position. If it finds that the appointee does not possess the appropriate eligibility or required qualification, it is duty-bound to disapprove his appointment. The CSC properly relied on the CHED certification for three reasons: first, the certification is presumed to have been accomplished in the regular performance of CHED's official functions and must be upheld absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary; second, it was based on CHED's independent evaluation and supported by official documents, and that it was embodied in a pro forma verification slip did not diminish its credibility and veracity; and third, there is nothing on the records of the case clearly establishing that Cutao obtained a bachelor's degree. The Court noted that if Cutao was able to obtain letters from the AIT registrar, he should have also been capable of simply requesting the university to issue a copy of his official transcript of records and diploma to once and for all remove any doubt clouding his educational attainment, but he did not. Finally, that Cutao's appointments were initially approved by the CSC and that he has been in position for six years do not preclude the CSC from reviewing his appointments and disapproving them if the appointee is eventually found ineligible to occupy such office. The fundamental rule is that appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness. As his promotional appointments violated the qualification standards set for the positions of PO3, SPO1, and SPO2, these were all null and void ab initio. A void appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure on the part of the holder of such appointment much less ripen into a vested right to office. Thus, contrary to the CA ruling, the Court cannot allow Cutao to hold office merely on the basis of good faith or the sheer length of time spent therein, otherwise the Court would be condoning the entrance of unqualified individuals to government service.

• Recall of Appointments as Non-Disciplinary Action — The recall or invalidation of an appointment does not require a full-blown, trial-type proceeding. In approving or disapproving an appointment, the CSC only examines the conformity of the appointment with applicable provisions of law and whether the appointee possesses all the minimum qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Thus, in contrast to administrative disciplinary actions, a recall does not require notice and hearing. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the CSC's recall of Cutao's promotional appointments without prior notice and hearing did not violate due process, as the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides for a remedial procedure applicable specifically to non-disciplinary cases.
• Due Process in Non-Disciplinary Cases — The essence of due process is the right to be heard, and a party can be accorded due process through means other than a notice or hearing. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that Cutao was sufficiently accorded due process because he availed himself of the remedial measures provided under Rule 16 of the Civil Service Rules, including appealing to the CSC Proper, moving for reconsideration, elevating the case to the CA, and filing his comment on the present petition.
• Void Appointment and Security of Tenure — A void appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure on the part of the holder of such appointment much less ripen into a vested right to office. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that Cutao's promotional appointments, having violated the qualification standards set for the positions of PO3, SPO1, and SPO2, were all null and void ab initio, and that he cannot be allowed to hold office merely on the basis of good faith or the sheer length of time spent therein.
• Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Functions — A certification issued by a government agency is presumed to have been accomplished in the regular performance of its official functions and must be upheld absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary. The Court applied this doctrine in giving weight to the CHED certification declaring Cutao's transcript and CAV as inauthentic, noting that it was based on CHED's independent evaluation and supported by official documents.

• "The recall or invalidation of an appointment does not require a full-blown, trial-type proceeding. '[I]n approving or disapproving an appointment, [the CSC] only examines the conformity of the appointment with applicable provisions of law and whether the appointee possesses all the minimum qualifications and none of the disqualifications.' Thus, in contrast to administrative disciplinary actions, a recall does not require notice and hearing." — This passage articulates the core ratio decidendi distinguishing the recall of appointments from administrative disciplinary actions, establishing that notice and hearing are not required for the former.
• "The essence of due process is the right to be heard. Thus, a party can be accorded due process through means other than a notice or hearing." — This passage defines the controlling doctrine of due process in the context of non-disciplinary cases, supporting the Court's conclusion that Cutao was sufficiently accorded due process through the available remedial measures.
• "A void appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure on the part of the holder of such appointment much less ripen into a vested right to office." — This passage states the fundamental rule that a void appointment cannot confer security of tenure or a vested right to office, which the Court applied to reject the CA's ruling that Cutao had acquired a legal right to the office.
• "The fundamental rule is that 'appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness.'" — This passage cites the constitutional mandate underlying the CSC's authority to recall appointments, emphasizing that the Court cannot allow unqualified individuals to enter government service.

• Civil Service Commission vs. Tinaya, 491 Phil. 729 (2005) — Cited as controlling precedent for the proposition that the CSC's authority to take appropriate action on all appointments includes the power to recall an appointment initially approved if later found to be in disregard of applicable provisions of the Civil Service law and regulations.
• Mathay, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission, 371 Phil. 17 (1999) — Cited in support of the CSC's power to recall appointments initially approved.
• City Mayor Debulgado vs. Civil Service Commission, 307 Phil. 195 (1994) — Cited as controlling precedent for the propositions that the recall of an appointment does not require notice and hearing, and that a void appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure.
• Obiasca vs. Basallote, 626 Phil. 775 (2010) — Cited by the Court of Appeals in support of its ruling that an appointment to civil service must be upheld despite procedural lapses if these were beyond the civil servant's control; the Supreme Court effectively rejected this application in favor of the CSC's recall.
• Civil Service Commission vs. Joson, Jr., 473 Phil. 844 (2004) — Cited for the proposition that the CSC performs its recognized duty of ensuring that the appointee has all the qualifications for the position.
• Santiago, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission, 258-A Phil. 519 (1989) — Cited for the proposition that the CSC is duty-bound to disapprove an appointment if it finds that the appointee does not possess the appropriate eligibility or required qualification.
• Yap vs. Lagtapon, 803 Phil. 652 (2017) — Cited in support of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, applied to the CHED certification.

• Article IX(B), Section 2(2), 1987 Constitution — Provides that appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness. The Court applied this provision in holding that Cutao's promotional appointments, having violated the qualification standards, were null and void ab initio, and that the Court cannot allow him to hold office merely on the basis of good faith or length of time spent therein.
• Section 12(14), Chapter 3, Title I, Subtitle A, Book V, Executive Order No. 292 — Grants the CSC the authority to take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel actions. The Court applied this provision in affirming the CSC's power to recall Cutao's promotional appointments.
• Section 22, Chapter 5, Title I, Subtitle A, Book V, Executive Order No. 292 — Defines qualification standards as expressing the minimum requirements for a class of positions in terms of education, training and experience, civil service eligibility, physical fitness, and other qualities required for successful performance. The Court applied this provision in determining that Cutao failed to meet the educational qualification requirement for the positions.
• Sections 77 and 78, Rule 16, Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (CSC Resolution No. 1101502, November 8, 2011) — Provides the remedial procedure for non-disciplinary cases, specifically the invalidation or disapproval of appointments, including who may appeal and where and when to file. The Court applied these provisions in holding that Cutao was sufficiently accorded due process through the available remedial measures.
• Sections 1 and 3, Rule 43, Rules of Court — Provides for appeals from the CSC Proper's Decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court noted this provision in explaining the remedial measures available to Cutao.
• Section 3, Rule V, Omnibus Implementing Rules — Cited in support of the proposition that a void appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure.

Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), Hernando, and Delos Santos, JJ., concurred. Baltazar-Padilla, J., was on leave.