That the same eligibility was used to support the issuance of an appointment in your favor by Mayor Hadji Ali MB. In her answer, petitioner denied the charge.
She averred that on October 15,a man with the name Tingcap Pandi, who is now deceased, approached her and convinced her to obtain her Civil Service eligibility from him without need of taking an manuel rodelo cayobit. She admitted that she used the said eligibility to support the issuance of a permanent appointment, but averred that she was not aware that the eligibility issued to her was spurious. On February 9,CSC-ARMM rendered a decision 5 finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty and imposing upon her a penalty of dismissal from service with all its accessory penalties.
Petitioner appealed to the CSC. Hence, it cannot be denied that Manuel rodelo cayobit is guilty of dishonesty. Accordingly, the Decision dated February 9, of the CSC-ARMM, finding her guilty of Dishonesty for which she was meted out a penalty of dismissal from service including the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service, is AFFIRMED.
On January 23,she requested a thirty day-extension of time, or until February manuel rodelo cayobit,to file a Petition for Review.
Petitioner, however, failed to file the intended petition within the extended period. On February manuel rodelo cayobit,petitioner filed a Motion to Admit the attached Petition.
On June 26,the CA dismissed the petition for having been tardily filed and for lack of merit. It held that the failure of the petitioner to file the intended Petition for Review within the extended period rendered the CSC decision final and executory. Accordingly, it had been divested of jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The CA also affirmed the CSC finding that there is substantial evidence on record to establish petitioner's culpability.
A motion for reconsideration was filed, but the CA denied it on October 2, However, she filed her appeal with manuel rodelo cayobit CA only on February 27, The CSC resolutions, therefore, attained finality. As we explained in Emerlinda S. The perfection of an appeal in manuel rodelo cayobit manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory. Failure to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory and beyond the power of the Court's review.
Jurisprudence mandates that when a decision becomes final and executory, it becomes valid and binding upon the parties and their successors-in-interest. Such decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may have been. Accordingly, the CA correctly dismissed the petition manuel rodelo cayobit it no longer had any jurisdiction to alter or nullify the CSC resolutions.
But, if only to show that manuel rodelo cayobit petition is doomed to fail anyway, we will discuss the issues raised manuel rodelo cayobit the petitioner. Petitioner asserts denial of due manuel rodelo cayobit because her case was decided without a formal investigation.
She claims that she was denied opportunity to present evidence, to confront the witnesses against her, and to object to manuel rodelo cayobit evidence adduced against her. To begin with, petitioner waived her right to a formal investigation on October 6, Second, records show that petitioner never raised this issue in the proceedings below. In the proceedings before the CSC and the CA, petitioner's defense zeroed in on her alleged lack of knowledge that her manuel rodelo cayobit was spurious.
It is too late in the day for petitioner to raise it for the first manuel rodelo cayobit in this petition. As a rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court ordinarily will not be considered by a reviewing manuel rodelo cayobit, because they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process underlie this rule.
Thirdly, petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend her case, contrary to what she wants to portray. It must be remembered that the essence of manuel rodelo cayobit process does not necessarily require a hearing, but manuel rodelo cayobit a reasonable opportunity or right to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side.
Due process in the administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in the courts of justice. A formal trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process. What is simply required is that the party concerned is manuel rodelo cayobit due notice and is afforded an opportunity or right to be heard.
It is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present evidence on which a fair decision can be made.
Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or through pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. Records show that petitioner answered the charges against her. Clearly, she was afforded an opportunity to be heard through her pleadings; manuel rodelo cayobit, her right to due manuel rodelo cayobit was not impaired. Petitioner also ascribes reversible error on the part of the CA in not dismissing the case against her.
Petitioner maintains that she was not aware that her eligibility was spurious. She was made to believe by Tingcap Pandi that the said eligibility was genuine. She insists that manuel rodelo cayobit is no substantial evidence to prove her guilt of dishonesty. The issue of whether petitioner's guilt for dishonesty is supported by substantial manuel rodelo cayobit is factual in nature, the determination of which is beyond the ambit manuel rodelo cayobit this Court.
Our task in an appeal by Petition for Review on Certiorari as a jurisdictional matter is limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the CA. Manuel rodelo cayobit the rule admits of several exceptions, none of them are in point in this case. Petitioner was charged with dishonesty which is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his duty.
Indisputably, when petitioner applied for the position of Municipal Assessor, she submitted a Certificate of Eligibility purportedly issued by the CSC certifying that she passed the Career Service Professional examination on November 28, with a rating of She also submitted a PDS dated February 21, stating that she passed the Career Service Professional examination on November manuel rodelo cayobit, with a rating of Upon verification, it was found that her Certificate of Eligibility was spurious.
Clearly, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that petitioner is, indeed, guilty of dishonesty. We cannot accept petitioner's simplistic claim that she used the manuel rodelo cayobit eligibility in good faith because she was not aware that the same was spurious.
Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction unconscientious.
In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal, we can ascertain a person's intention not from his own protestation of good faith, which is self-serving, but from evidence of his conduct and outward acts. In this light, we quote with approval the following disquisition of the CA rejecting petitioner's protestation of good faith:. We carefully noted her acts which are inconsistent with her protestation of good faith, thus:. First, she obviously knew that Tingcap Pandi, if indeed, he was existing, was a fixer, because any aspirant for employment in the government service, such as petitioner, knows well that civil service eligibility cannot be obtained without taking and passing an appropriate civil service examination.
Second, manuel rodelo cayobit claims she relied on the assurance of Tingcap Pandi, who "approached xxx and convinced and persuaded her to file CSC eligibility through him xxx without an examination. Anyone who wants to be appointed a[s] Municipal Assessor, a position of grave responsibility, cannot be recklessly credulous or downright gullible.
As we manuel rodelo cayobit earlier, a person is considered in good faith not only when he has shown an honest intention but that he must also be free from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put him on inquiry. To be approached by a person offering an unusual "service" should have put petitioner on guard as to induce her to scrutinize the integrity of the offer. Third, petitioner did not take any step to determine from the CSC the authenticity of the document procured for her by the "fixer," which turned out to be spurious, before using it as basis for indicating in her PDS that she passed the civil service professional examination.
This is sic aberrant behavior of the petitioner is contrary to good faith. Fourth, without verifying with the CSC the authority of Tingcap Pandi in offering the unusual "service", petitioner proceeded to use the spurious document in support of her appointment as Municipal Assessor. It must be stressed that dishonesty is a manuel rodelo cayobit offense, which reflects on the person's character and exposes the manuel rodelo cayobit decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity.
Its immense debilitating effect on the government service cannot be over-emphasized. Under Civil Service regulations, the use of fake or spurious civil service eligibility is regarded as dishonesty and grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal from the service. Elbinias, concurring; rollo, manuel rodelo cayobit. Court of Appeals, G. Court of Appeals, supra note 17, at Commission on Audit, G.
Cayobit, supra note Back to Home Back to Main. Debt Kollect Company, Inc. ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division. MTJ - Noryn S. Judge Maria Clarita casuga-Tabin etc. P - Cecilia T. Felicidad Dadivas Palabrica etc. Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala G. Reynaldo De Leon etc. Mariano and Manuel rodelo cayobit Delos Santos G. Nayong Filipino Foundation G. Grace Calimon, manuel rodelo cayobit al. Pacita Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. The CSC disposed, thus: Hence, this recourse by petitioner theorizing that: We are not convinced.
We carefully noted her acts which are inconsistent with her protestation of good faith, thus:
Majority of customers get verified in less than 15 min. Blockchain Training. For a deeper analysis, you will need to apply approaches that include a review of the news about the pair you are interested in, or the means of technical analysis.