G.R. No. 191787. June 22, 2015.

MACARIO CATIPON, JR., petitioner, vs. JEROME JAPSON,

respondent.

Administrative Agencies; Civil Service Commission; Dismissal from

Service; The Civil Service Commission (CSC), as the central personnel
agency of the Government, has jurisdiction over disputes involving the
removal and separation of all employees of government branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including government-owned
or -controlled corporations with original charters.—“The CSC, as the
central personnel agency of the Government, has

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

558

558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

jurisdiction over disputes involving the removal and separation of all

employees of government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and
agencies, including government-owned or -controlled corporations with
original charters. Simply put, it is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to
the civil service.” In line with the above provisions of the Constitution and
its mandate as the central personnel agency of government and sole arbiter
of controversies relating to the civil service, the CSC adopted Memorandum
Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (MC 19), or the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which the CA cited as the basis
for its pronouncement. Section 4 thereof provides: Section 4. Jurisdiction of
the Civil Service Commission.—The Civil Service Commission shall hear
and decide administrative cases instituted by, or brought before it, directly
or on appeal, including contested appointments, and shall review decisions
and actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it. Except as
otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the Civil Service
Commission shall have the final authority to pass upon the removal,
separation and suspension of all officers and employees in the civil service
and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline and efficiency of
such officers and employees.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies; The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires
that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she
should have availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative
processes afforded him or her.—The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies requires that “before a party is allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of
all the means of administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if
resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by
giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a
matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be
exhausted first before the court’s judicial power can be sought. The
premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one’s cause
of action. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on
practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails
lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.
Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience,
will shy away from a

559

VOL. 759, JUNE 22, 2015 559

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed

and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned every
opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case.” Indeed, the
administrative agency concerned — in this case the Commission Proper —
is in the “best position to correct any previous error committed in its
forum.”
Same; Same; Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; The doctrine of
primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the
authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially
lodged with an administrative body of special competence.—The CA is
further justified in refusing to take cognizance of the petition for review, as
“[t]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate
unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which
is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.”
When petitioner’s recourse lies in an appeal to the Commission Proper in
accordance with the procedure prescribed in MC 19, the CA may not be
faulted for refusing to acknowledge petitioner before it.
Administrative Law; Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service; The corresponding penalty for conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service may be imposed upon an erring public officer as long
as the questioned act or conduct taints the image and integrity of the office;
and the act need not be related to or connected with the public officer’s
official functions.—The corresponding penalty for conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service may be imposed upon an erring public officer as
long as the questioned act or conduct taints the image and integrity of the
office; and the act need not be related to or connected with the public
officer’s official functions. Under our civil service laws, there is no concrete
description of what specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, but the following acts or omissions have been treated
as such: misappropriation of public funds; abandonment of office; failure to
report back to work without prior notice; failure to safekeep public records
and property; making false entries in public documents; falsification of
court orders; a judge’s act of brandishing a gun, and threatening the
complainants during a traffic altercation; a court interpreter’s participation
in the execution of a document conveying complainant’s property which
resulted in a quarrel in the latter’s family; selling fake Unified Vehicular
Volume Program ex-

560

560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

emption cards to his officemates during office hours; a CA employee’s

forging of receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations; a
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) employee’s act of repeatedly
changing his IP address, which caused network problems within his office
and allowed him to gain access to the entire GSIS network, thus putting the
system in a vulnerable state of security; a public prosecutor’s act of signing
a motion to dismiss that was not prepared by him, but by a judge; and a
teacher’s act of directly selling a book to her students in violation of the
Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers. In petitioner’s case, his act of
making false entries in his CSPE application undoubtedly constitutes
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; the absence of a
willful or deliberate intent to falsify or make dishonest entries in his
application is immaterial, for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest
of the service “may or may not be characterized by corruption or a willful
intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules.”
Same; Public Office; Assumption of public office is impressed with
paramount public interest that requires the highest standards of ethical
conduct.—The Court cannot consider petitioner’s plea that “in the interest
of justice and in the spirit of the policy which promotes and preserves civil
service eligibility,” his career service professional eligibility should not be
revoked. The act of using a fake or spurious civil service eligibility for one’s
benefit not only amounts to violation of the civil service examinations or
CSPE; it also results in prejudice to the government and the public in
general. It is a transgression of the law which has no place in the public
service. “Assumption of public office is impressed with the paramount
public interest that requires the highest standards of ethical conduct. A
person aspiring for public office must observe honesty, candor, and faithful
compliance with the law. Nothing less is expected.”

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jennifer N. Asuncion for petitioner.
Faustino A. Olowan for respondent.

561

VOL. 759, JUNE 22, 2015 561

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to set aside the

December 11, 2009 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-
G.R. S.P. No. 94426 affirming the July 6, 2005 Decision3 of the
Civil Service Commission-Cordillera Administrative Region (CSC-
CAR) in CAR-05-034DC, as well as its March 17, 2010 Resolution4
denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.5

Factual Antecedents

The facts are as follows:

Petitioner Macario U. Catipon, Jr. is the holder of a Bachelor’s Degree in

Commerce from the Baguio Colleges Foundation. When applying for
graduation, he was allowed to join the graduation ceremonies despite a
deficiency of 1.5 units in Military Science, pursuant to a school policy
allowing students with deficiencies of not more than 12 units to be included
in the list of graduates. However, a restriction came after, which is, that the
deficiency must be cured before the student can be considered a graduate.
In 1985, petitioner found employment with the Social Security System
(SSS) in Bangued, Abra.
Sometime in September 1993, the personnel head of the SSS in
Bangued, Abra informed petitioner that the Civil Service Commission was
conducting a Career Service Professional Examination (CSPE) in October
of the same year. Petitioner filed an application to take the ex-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 9-30.

 2 Id., at pp. 35-47; penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor and
concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this
Court) and Japar B. Dimaampao.
3 Id., at pp. 19-28.
4 Id., at pp. 32-33.
5 Id., at pp. 48-56.

562

562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

amination, believing that the CSC still allowed CSPE applicants to

substitute the length of their government service for any academic
deficiency which they may have. However, the above mentioned policy of
the CSC had been discontinued since January 1993 pursuant to Civil Service
Commission Memorandum Circular No. 42, Series of 1991 and Office
Memo. No. 63, Series of 1992.
Nevertheless, petitioner took the CSPE tests on October 17, 1993 and
obtained a rating of 80.52%. Eventually, petitioner was promoted to Senior
Analyst and Officer-in-Charge Branch Head of the SSS at Bangued, Abra.
In October 1995, he finally eliminated his deficiency of 1.5 units in Military
Science.
On March 10, 2003, respondent Jerome Japson, a former Senior Member
Services Representative of SSS Bangued, filed a letter-complaint with the
Civil Service Commission-CAR Regional Director, alleging that petitioner
made deliberate false entries in his CSPE application, specifically, that he
obtained his college degree in 1993 when actually he graduated in 1995
only, after removing his deficiency of 1.5 units in Military Education. Also,
that petitioner was not qualified to take the CSPE examination in 1993 since
he was not yet then a graduate of a four-year college course, contrary to the
entry in his application form.
After preliminary investigation, petitioner was charged with Dishonesty,
Falsification of Official documents, Grave Misconduct and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service by the CSC-CAR.6

Respondent’s Letter-Complaint7 against petitioner was docketed

as CSC Disciplinary Administrative Case No. BB-03-006.
In his Answer,8 petitioner essentially pleaded good faith, lack of
malice, and honest mistake. He maintained that at the time of his
application to take the CSPE, he was of the honest

_______________

6 Id., at pp. 36-37.

7 CA Rollo, pp. 50-52.
8 Id., at pp. 68-71.
 563

VOL. 759, JUNE 22, 2015 563

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

belief that the policy of the CSC — that any deficiency in the
applicant’s educational requirement may be substituted by his length
of service — was still subsisting.
On July 6, 2005, the CSC-CAR, through Director IV Atty.
Lorenzo S. Danipog, rendered a Decision9 containing the following
pronouncements:

Clearly, respondent Catipon is not without any fault under the foregoing
circumstances. The only issue now left is with respect to the particular
offense for which Catipon may be held responsible. Respondent Catipon is
charged (with) four offenses: Dishonesty, Falsification of Official
Documents, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of the Service.
The key document allegedly falsified in this case is the Application Form
x x x of respondent Catipon for the purpose of taking the CS Professional
Examination scheduled on October 17, 1993. Close and careful perusal of
the said application form reveals that most of the entries filled up by
respondent are typewritten. The only entries handwritten by respondent are
those corresponding to “Year Graduated” and “School Where Graduated”
which were answered by Macario with “1984” and “BCF” respectively.
Another handwritten entry is with respect to “Degree Finished,” the
handwritten “BSC” entry, however, was just superimposed on the
typewritten “Commerce.”
The fact that majority of the entries or data in the application form is
typewritten suggests that the said application form was consciously drafted
and meticulously prepared before its actual submission to the CSC for
processing. They are relevant and material entries or data sought from
respondent. It is worth emphasizing however that the predrafted application
form, considering the typewritten entries, shows respondent’s confusion on
how to make entries thereat. Respondent answered both the IF YES column
and IF NO column correspond-

_______________

9 Id., at pp. 19-28.

564

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

ing to the question “Are you a college graduate” in Item 8. x x x

 xxxx
The manner that Item 8 was filled up by respondent Catipon shows lack
of deliberate intent to defraud the government. He manifested in his
application his uncertainty on how to take the fact that he only lacks 1.5
units Military Science to be conferred a graduate status, vis-à-vis the CSC
policy on educational requirement. Though the entry “undergrad” was
erased, the CSC employee who processed the application would have
doubted the truthfulness and authenticity of respondent’s entries in Item 8 of
the Application Form, and thus the educational status of Macario. x x x
xxxx
Catipon had tried to show the real state of the matter regarding his
educational attainment as can be deduced from the manner he answered
Item No. 8 in the application form. This may be taken as good faith, which
will serve to mitigate any liability incurred by respondent Catipon. The
premeditated intent to deceive or willfully distort the facts in this case is not
present. The acts of Catipon do not even show blatant disregard of an
established rule or a clear intent to violate the law if at all, there was attempt
to reveal the truth to the examination division processing the application.
xxxx
With [regard] to the eligibility earned by respondent Macario in view of
his passing the October 17, 1993 Career Service Professional Examination,
the same needs to be revoked being the fruit of a poisonous tree, so to speak.
Paragraph 2 of Sec. 6, Rule II, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
Executive Order No. 292 states:
Provided that when an applica[nt] for examination is found to have x x x
intentionally made any false statement of any material fact in his
application, x x x the Commission shall invalidate such examination x x x.

565

VOL. 759, JUNE 22, 2015 565

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

With the foregoing, respondent Macario U. Catipon, Jr., Senior Analyst

and OIC Branch Head, Social Security System, Bangued, Abra, is hereby
exonerated of the charges Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Documents
and Grave Misconduct. However, respondent is found guilty of Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
the imposable penalty on the first offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service is suspension of six months and one day to one year.
Under Section 53 of the same Rules, good faith is enumerated as one
mitigating circumstance. Thus, respondent Macario Catipon, Jr. is hereby
meted a penalty of six months and one day suspension, without pay, which
is the minimum period of the penalty attached to the offense committed. The
Career Service Professional eligibility of respondent is also ordered
revoked, without prejudice however to retaking of the said examination.
Thus, Catipon, after serving suspension herein provided should not be
allowed to go back to his current position without CS Professional
eligibility. Consequently, in case respondent Catipon fails to retake or pass
CSPE, after serving his suspension, he may be demoted to any available
position that fits his subprofessional eligibility.10

Petitioner moved for reconsideration,11 but the CSC-CAR

sustained its judgment in a March 23, 2006 Decision,12 which
contained the following pronouncement:

Catipon also asserted that in view of his exoneration of Dishonesty,

Falsification of Official Documents and Grave Misconduct, there is no
longer any basis to hold respondent guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service. This contention is without legal

_______________

10 Id., at pp. 25-28.

11 Id., at pp. 29-37.
12 Id., at pp. 39-44.

566

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

basis. In the case of Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, 363 SCRA

480, the Honorable Supreme Court held as follows:
Under the Civil Service laws and rules, there is no description of what
specific acts constitute the grave offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service.
As alluded to previously in Decision No. CAR-05-034DC, Catipon is not
without fault under the circumstances. To completely exonerate respondent
would be inequitable and iniquitous considering the totality of events
surrounding this case. Though there was no deliberate intent to falsify or to
make dishonest entry in the Application Form as deduced from the manner
that the said form was accomplished, the fact that there was indeed such
dishonest or false entry in the CSPE Application Form is undisputedly
established. In view of such an established fact, the integrity of the Civil
Service Examination, particularly the CSPE has been blemished which is
sufficient to constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service.13

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In a Petition for Review docketed with the CA as C.A.-G.R. S.P.

No. 94426, petitioner prayed for injunctive relief and the reversal of
the above CSC-CAR decision. He argued that the CSC-CAR
incorrectly found him guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service when he has been declared innocent of the
charges of dishonesty, falsification of official documents, and grave
misconduct; that while the Supreme Court has held that making false
entries in public documents may be considered as conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, such act must be
accompanied by deliberate intent or a willful desire to defy or
disregard established rules

_______________

13 Id., at p. 43.

567

VOL. 759, JUNE 22, 2015 567

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

or norms in the service;14 and that with the finding that he merely
committed an innocent mistake in filling up the application form for
the CSPE, he may not be found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service.
On December 11, 2009, the CA rendered the assailed Decision
denying the petition, decreeing thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED

for lack of merit. The Decision [sic] of the Civil Service Commission-
Cordillera Administrative Region dated July 6, 2005 and March 23, 2006 is
[sic] AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.15

The CA held that instead of filing a petition for review directly

with it, petitioner should have interposed an appeal with the Civil
Service Commission (CSC), pursuant to Sections 5(A)(1), 43 and 49
of the CSC Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases;16 that by filing
a petition directly with it,

_______________

14 Citing Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, 415 Phil. 713; 363 SCRA 480
(2001).
15 Rollo, p. 46.
16 Section 5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission Proper.—The Civil
Service Commission Proper shall have jurisdiction over the following cases:
A. Disciplinary
1. Decisions of Civil Service Regional Offices brought before it on petition for
review;
xxxx
 Section 43. Filing of Appeals.—Decisions of heads of departments, agencies,
provinces, cities, municipalities and other instrumentalities imposing a penalty
exceeding thirty (30) days suspension or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days
salary, may be appealed to the Commission Proper within a period of fifteen (15) days
from receipt thereof.
In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the
Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department head and finally to
the Commission Proper. Pending

568

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

petitioner violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative

remedies; that petitioner’s case is not exceptional as would exempt it
from the application of the doctrine; that per the ruling in Bayaca v.
Judge Ramos,17 the absence of deliberate intent or willful desire to
defy or disregard established rules or norms in the service does not
preclude a finding of guilt for conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service; and that petitioner did not act with prudence and care,
but instead was negligent, in the filling up of his CSPE application
form and in failing to verify beforehand the requirements for the
examination.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA stood its
ground. Hence, the instant recourse.

Issues

Petitioner raises the following issues for resolution:

(A)
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO REALIZE THAT GIVEN THE
IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF THE SUSPENSION IMPOSED BY THE
CIVIL

_______________

appeal, the same shall be executory except where the penalty is removal, in which
case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned.
A notice of appeal including the appeal memorandum shall be filed with the
appellate authority, copy furnished the disciplining office. The latter shall submit the
records of the case, which shall be systematically and chronologically arranged,
paged and securely bound to prevent loss, with its comment, within fifteen (15) days,
to the appellate authority.
Section 49. Petition for Review.—A complainant may elevate the decision of
the Civil Service Regional Office dismissing a complaint for lack of a prima facie
case before the Commission Proper through a Petition for Review within fifteen (15)
days from the receipt of said decision.
17 597 Phil. 86; 577 SCRA 93 (2009).

569

VOL. 759, JUNE 22, 2015 569

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

SERVICE COMMISSION-CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE

REGION AGAINST THE PETITIONER, HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN
SEEKING JUDICIAL RECOURSE BEFORE (THE COURT OF
APPEALS);
(B)
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT MISAPPLIED IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED
CASE THE RULE ON PRIOR EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES;
(C)
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE
PETITIONER ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND THIS NEGATES GUILT
FOR CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
SERVICE.18

Petitioner’s Arguments

In his Petition and Reply19 seeking a reversal of the assailed CA

dispositions and, consequently, exoneration from the charge of
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, petitioner
argues that he was constrained to file the petition for review with the
CA as his decreed six-month suspension was imminent as a
consequence of the executory nature of the CSC-CAR decision; that
immediate judicial intervention was necessary to “prevent serious
injury and damage” to him, which is why his CA petition included a
prayer for injunctive relief; that the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies should not have been applied strictly in his
case, given the special circumstance that his suspension would mean
loss of his only source of income;20 that he should be completely
exonerated from the charges against him, since

_______________

18 Rollo, p. 22.
19 Id., at pp. 242-249.
20 Citing Pagara v. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 66; 254 SCRA 606 (1996).
 570

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service must be

accompanied by deliberate intent or a willful desire to defy or
disregard established rules or norms in the service — which is
absent in his case; and that his career service professional eligibility
should not be revoked in the interest of justice and in the spirit of the
policy which promotes and preserves civil service eligibility.

Respondent’s Arguments

In his Comment21 seeking denial of the petition, respondent

counters that completion of all the academic requirements — and
not merely attendance at graduation rites — confers the necessary
degree which qualifies a student to take the CSPE; that petitioner’s
claim that he is a graduate as of 1984 is belied by his Transcript of
Records22 and other pieces of evidence submitted, which reflect the
date of his graduation as October 1995 — or after completion of his
1.5-unit deficiency in Military Science; that petitioner cannot claim
to suffer irreparable injury or damage as a result of the CSC-CAR’s
Decision, which is valid and binding; that the revocation of
petitioner’s eligibility is only proper, since he was then not qualified
when he took the CSPE; that the CSC-CAR was correct in finding
that petitioner’s act compromised the image and integrity of the civil
service, which justified the imposition of a corresponding penalty;
that this Court in the Rupa case made it clear that the act of making
false entries in public documents constitutes conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service, a grave offense punishable by
suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first
offense, and dismissal for the second offense; and that indeed,
petitioner violated the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and
exhaustion of administrative remedies when he proceeded directly to
the CA, instead of filing an appeal with the CSC.

_______________

21 Rollo, pp. 98-115.

22 CA Rollo, pp. 79-81.

571

VOL. 759, JUNE 22, 2015 571

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson
 Our Ruling

The Court denies the Petition.

Our fundamental law, particularly Sections 2(1) and 3 of Article
IX-B, state that —

Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,

instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including government-
owned or -controlled corporations with original charters.
Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel
agency of the Government, shall establish a career service and adopt
measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,
progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the
merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources development
programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate
conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the President and the
Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.

Thus, “the CSC, as the central personnel agency of the

Government, has jurisdiction over disputes involving the removal
and separation of all employees of government branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including government-
owned or -controlled corporations with original charters. Simply put,
it is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service.”23
In line with the above provisions of the Constitution and its
mandate as the central personnel agency of government and sole
arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service, the CSC adopted
Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (MC 19), or the
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service, which the CA cited as the basis for its pronouncement.
Section 4 thereof provides:

_______________

23 Cabungcal v. Lorenzo, 623 Phil. 329, 338-339; 608 SCRA 419, 428 (2009).

572

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.—The Civil

Service Commission shall hear and decide administrative cases instituted
by, or brought before it, directly or on appeal, including contested
appointments, and shall review decisions and actions of its offices and of the
agencies attached to it.
 Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the Civil
Service Commission shall have the final authority to pass upon the removal,
separation and suspension of all officers and employees in the civil service
and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline and efficiency of
such officers and employees.

As pointed out by the CA, pursuant to Section 5(A)(1) of MC 19,

the Civil Service Commission Proper, or Commission Proper, shall
have jurisdiction over decisions of Civil Service Regional Offices
brought before it on petition for review. And under Section 43,
“decisions of heads of departments, agencies, provinces, cities,
municipalities and other instrumentalities imposing a penalty
exceeding thirty days suspension or fine in an amount exceeding
thirty days salary, may be appealed to the Commission Proper within
a period of fifteen days from receipt thereof.”24 “Commission
Proper” refers to

_______________

24 It will be observed that the enumeration in Section 43 failed to include

“Regional Offices.” Under Section 49, “a complainant may elevate the decision of the
Civil Service Regional Office dismissing a complaint for lack of a prima facie case
before the Commission Proper through a Petition for Review within fifteen (15) days
from the receipt of said decision.” Such section mentions only “complainant.” Going
by these two sections, it would appear that a respondent in a decision rendered by a
Regional Office would have no recourse, because MC 19 has not given him one. It is,
however, absurd to assume that decisions of Regional Offices may not be appealed at
all, for then they would be superior to the Commission Proper, or the courts for that
matter. Thus, it must be said that Section 43 should necessarily include the decisions
of Regional Offices as appealable to the Commission Proper and, in turn, ultimately
subject to judicial review.

573

VOL. 759, JUNE 22, 2015 573

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

the Civil Service Commission-Central Office.25

It is only the decision of the Commission Proper that may be
brought to the CA on petition for review, under Section 50 of MC
19, which provides thus:

Section 50. Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals.—A party

may elevate a decision of the Commission before the Court of Appeals by
way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of
Court.26
 Thus, we agree with the CA’s conclusion that in filing his petition
for review directly with it from the CSC-CAR Regional Director,
petitioner failed to observe the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. As correctly stated by the appellate court,
non-exhaustion of administrative remedies renders petitioner’s CA
petition premature and thus dismissible.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires
that “before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court,
he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if resort to a
remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by
giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to
decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then
such remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s judicial
power can be sought. The premature invocation of the intervention
of the court is fatal to one’s cause of action. The doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical and legal
reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser
expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.
Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and
convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of
administrative redress has been completed and

_______________

25 MC 19, Section 2(c), on Coverage and Definition of Terms.

26 Should be “1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.”

574

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned

every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case.”27
Indeed, the administrative agency concerned — in this case the
Commission Proper — is in the “best position to correct any
previous error committed in its forum.”28
The CA is further justified in refusing to take cognizance of the
petition for review, as “[t]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction does
not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence.”29 When petitioner’s
recourse lies in an appeal to the Commission Proper in accordance
with the procedure prescribed in MC 19, the CA may not be faulted
for refusing to acknowledge petitioner before it.
We likewise affirm the CA’s pronouncement that petitioner was
negligent in filling up his CSPE application form and in failing to
verify beforehand the specific requirements for the CSPE
examination. Petitioner’s claim of good faith and absence of
deliberate intent or willful desire to defy or disregard the rules
relative to the CSPE is not a defense as to exonerate him from the
charge of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service;
under our legal system, ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith.30 Moreover, petitioner — as mere applicant
for acceptance into the professional service through the CSPE —
cannot expect to be served on a silver platter; the obligation to know
what is required for the examination falls on him, and not the CSC
or his colleagues in office. As aptly ruled by the appellate court:

_______________

27 Maglalang v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR),

G.R. No. 190566, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 472, 482-483.
28 Montoya v. Varilla, 595 Phil. 507, 528; 574 SCRA 831, 850 (2008).
29 Vidad v. Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 42, G.R. No. 98084,
October 18, 1993, 227 SCRA 271, 276.
30 Civil Code, Article 3.

575

VOL. 759, JUNE 22, 2015 575

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

In Bacaya31 v. Ramos, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty

of both negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
when he issued an arrest warrant despite the deletion of the penalty of
imprisonment imposed on an accused in a particular criminal case.
Respondent judge in the said case claimed that the issuance of the warrant
was a mistake, done in good faith and that it has been a practice in his office
for the Clerk of Court to study motions and that he would simply sign the
prepared order. The Supreme Court rejected his defense and stated that
negligence is the failure to observe such care as a reasonably prudent and
careful person would use under ordinary circumstances. An act of the will is
necessary for deliberate intent to exist; such is not necessary in an act of
negligence.
Here, petitioner failed to verify the requirements before filing his
application to take the CSPE exam. He simply relied on his prior knowledge
of the rules, particularly, that he could substitute his deficiency in Military
Science with the length of his government service. He cannot lay blame on
the personnel head of the SSS-Bangued, Abra, who allegedly did not inform
him of the pertinent rules contained in Civil Service Memorandum Circular
No. 42, Series of 1991. For, [if] he were truly a reasonably prudent and
careful person, petitioner himself should have verified from the CSC the
requirements imposed on prospective examinees. In so doing, he would
certainly have been informed of the new CSC policy disallowing
substitution of one’s length of government service for academic
deficiencies. Neither should petitioner have relied on an unnamed Civil
Service employee’s advice since it was not shown that the latter was
authorized to give information regarding the examination nor that said
employee was competent and capable of giving correct information. His
failure to verify the actual CSPE requirements which a reasonably prudent
and careful person would have done constitutes negligence. Though

_______________

31 Should be Bayaca.

576

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

his failure was not a deliberate act of the will, such is not necessary in an
act of negligence and, as in Bacaya, negligence is not inconsistent with a
finding of guilt for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.32

The corresponding penalty for conduct prejudicial to the best

interest of the service may be imposed upon an erring public officer
as long as the questioned act or conduct taints the image and
integrity of the office; and the act need not be related to or connected
with the public officer’s official functions. Under our civil service
laws, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but the
following acts or omissions have been treated as such:
misappropriation of public funds; abandonment of office; failure to
report back to work without prior notice; failure to safekeep public
records and property; making false entries in public documents;
falsification of court orders; a judge’s act of brandishing a gun, and
threatening the complainants during a traffic altercation; a court
interpreter’s participation in the execution of a document conveying
complainant’s property which resulted in a quarrel in the latter’s
family; selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume Program exemption
cards to his officemates during office hours; a CA employee’s
forging of receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations; a
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) employee’s act of
repeatedly changing his IP address, which caused network problems
within his office and allowed him to gain access to the entire GSIS
network, thus putting the system in a vulnerable state of security;33 a
public prosecutor’s act of signing a motion to dismiss that was not
prepared by him, but by a judge;34 and a teacher’s act of directly
selling a book to her students in violation of the Code

_______________

32 Rollo, pp. 44-46.

33 See Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Mayordomo, G.R. No.
191218, May 31, 2011, 649 SCRA 667.
34 Espiña v. Cerujano, 573 Phil. 254; 550 SCRA 107 (2008).

577

VOL. 759, JUNE 22, 2015 577

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

of Ethics for Professional Teachers.35 In petitioner’s case, his act

of making false entries in his CSPE application undoubtedly
constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; the
absence of a willful or deliberate intent to falsify or make dishonest
entries in his application is immaterial, for conduct grossly
prejudicial to the best interest of the service “may or may not be
characterized by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to
disregard established rules.”36
Finally, the Court cannot consider petitioner’s plea that “in the
interest of justice and in the spirit of the policy which promotes and
preserves civil service eligibility,” his career service professional
eligibility should not be revoked. The act of using a fake or spurious
civil service eligibility for one’s benefit not only amounts to
violation of the civil service examinations or CSPE; it also results in
prejudice to the government and the public in general. It is a
transgression of the law which has no place in the public service.37
“Assumption of public office is impressed with the paramount
public interest that requires the highest standards of ethical conduct.
A person aspiring for public office must observe honesty, candor,
and faithful compliance with the law. Nothing less is expected.”38
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The December 11,
2009 Decision and March 17, 2010 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 94426 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

_______________

35 Pia v. Gervacio, Jr., G.R. No. 172334, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 220.
36 Espiña v. Cerujano, supra note 34 at p. 263; p. 115.
37 See Re: Complaint of the Civil Service Commission, Cordillera Administrative
Region, Baguio City Against Chulyao, MCTC-Barlig, Mountain Province, 646 Phil.
34, 44; 631 SCRA 413, 423 (2010).
38 Id.
 578

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson

Carpio (Chairperson), Perez,** Mendoza and Jardeleza,*** JJ.,

concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—Acts of court personnel outside their official functions

constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
because these acts violate what is prescribed for court personnel.
(Office of the Court Administrator vs. Necessario, 694 SCRA 348
[2013])
Article IX(B), Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the
Civil Service Commission (CSC) shall be “the central personnel
agency of the Government.” (Light Rail Transit Authority vs.
Salvaña, 726 SCRA 141 [2014])
——o0o——

_______________

* * Designated acting member per Special Order No. 2067 dated June 22, 2015.
* ** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 2056 dated June 10, 2015.

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.