MACARIO CATIPON, JR. VS. JEROME JAPSON, G.R. No. 191787, June 22, 2015
“x x x.
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.8 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:
In Bacaya9 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&r 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 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.10
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;11 a public
prosecutor’s act of signing a motion to dismiss that was not prepared by him,
but by a judge;12 and a teacher’s act of directly selling
a book to her students in violation of the Code of Ethics for Professional
Teachers.13 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.”14
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.15 “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.”16
X x x.”
