Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83849:58400&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 01:47:42+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 206379, November 19, 2014 - CECILIA PAGADUAN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION* AND REMA MARTIN SALVADOR, Respondents.
CECILIA PAGADUAN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION* AND REMA MARTIN SALVADOR, Respondents.
Subject of this disposition is the petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks to review, reverse and set aside the August 31, 2012 Amended Decision1 and the February 20, 2013 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 120208, involving a complaint for falsification and misrepresentation.
Subsequently, on October 19, 1994, Pagaduan filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City (MTCC), a criminal charge against Salvador for falsification of public documents under Article 172 in relation to Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code in making false statements in her PDS, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 15482.
On May 22, 2000, a decision6 on the administrative complaint was rendered by the CSC-RO II, holding Salvador liable only for Simple Misconduct and imposing the penalty of one (1) month suspension, after ruling that her act was a mere error of judgment.
Later, on October 22, 2008, the MTCC rendered a decision9 in Criminal Case No. 15842, finding Salvador guilty of falsification of public documents. Salvador did not appeal and then applied for probation. Her application was granted and she was placed under probation for a period of one (1) year.
Thereafter, Pagaduan filed a second administrative complaint against Salvador, this time for the offense of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Salvador submitted the required counter affidavit, raising the defenses of res judicata, forum shopping, and double jeopardy on account of the finality of the decision in the first administrative complaint for falsification. After finding a prima facie case in the second administrative complaint, Salvador was formally charged. To answer the charges against her, she adopted her defenses in her counter-affidavit and submitted documents to support her cause.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Commission dated 1 March 2011 and its Resolution promulgated 3 June 2011 affirming the same are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, the Decision of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. 2 of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, dated 12 January 2010, is hereby AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED, such that Our Decision dated 28 February 2012 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and in view thereof, the Decision and Resolution of public respondent Civil Service Commission dated 01 March 2011 and 01 June 2011 respectively, are REINSTATED.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT FINALLY EXONERATED RESPONDENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE OF CONVICTION OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE BY FINDING THE FALSIFICATION COMMITTED BY RESPONDENT IN HER PERSONAL DATA SHEET AS ONLY A SIMPLE MISCONDUCT WHICH DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MORAL TURPITUDE.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND AUTHORITY AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT APPLYING IN THE INSTANT CASE THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF TEVES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN WHICH SPECIFICALLY CATEGORIZED THE CRIME OF FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT FOR WHICH RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED AS A CRIME WHICH INVOLVES MORAL TURPITUDE.
In this case, the substantive issue for resolution is whether or not Salvador was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the procedural issues of res judicata and forum shopping were raised by the respondent.
As previously recited, this petition arose from the second administrative complaint filed by Pagaduan against Salvador. The first administrative complaint was for the offenses of falsification and misrepresentation, where the CSC-RO II found her to be liable for simple misconduct only. The CSC decision affirming the said CSC-RO II decision became final and executory, and Salvador served the penalty of one (1) month suspension.
Meanwhile, the October 22, 2008, MTCC decision24 in the criminal case filed by Pagaduan against Salvador, finding the latter guilty of the crime of falsification of public document, attained finality as Salvador did not appeal. By reason of the said conviction, Pagaduan filed the second administrative complaint for the offense of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Before discussing the substantial aspect of the case, the issues on the procedural aspect shall first be addressed.
Contrary to Salvador's contention, however, there appears to be no identity of issues and facts in the two administrative cases. The first case involved facts necessary to resolve the issue of whether or not Salvador falsified her PDS. The second one involved facts necessary to resolve the issue of whether or not Salvador was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Falsification was the main issue in the first case, while it was no longer an issue in the second case. The only fact to consider in the second administrative complaint is the fact of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, it must be borne in mind that both administrative complaints were based on different grounds. The grounds were separate and distinct from each other and entailed different sets of facts.
Corollarily, Pagaduan cannot be liable for forum shopping. The established rule is that for forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances, and must raise identical causes of actions, subject matter, and issues.28 It exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, namely: (a) there is identity of parties, or at least such parties representing the same interests in both actions; (b) there is identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same set of facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other."29 Since no res judicata exists, no forum shopping either exists in this case.
Now on the substantial issue, Pagaduan avers that Salvador was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude - a sufficient ground for dismissal from government service. On the other hand, Salvador argues that the falsification she committed did not involve moral turpitude. In resolving the issue of whether Salvador was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, the existence of only two elements is necessary: (1) the conviction of a crime, which conviction has attained finality; and (2) the crime for which the accused was convicted involves moral turpitude. There is no dispute as to the first element, leaving Us to determine the presence of the other.
She alleged that she honestly believed she was employed with VWI because Alfonso Tuzon is the operations manager of VWT. Second, she was responsible in the preparation of the payroll sheets of VWI.
Rodolfo Quiambao worked personally with Alfonso Tuzon and not with VWI.
Following the Court's disposition in the aforecited cases, the CSC and the CA therefore erred in reaching a conclusion to the contrary, especially that Salvador's conviction for such crime already attained finality. Both tribunals were of the view that Salvador merely committed a mere error of judgment and, thus, no moral turpitude was involved. Their position was based on the finding previously made by the CSC-RO II in the first administrative complaint. That could not a valid basis because, as earlier pointed out, the second case was separate and distinct from the first one.
Although the CSC itself recognized that it was for the Court to determine what crime involved moral turpitude, it ruled that Salvador's commission of the crime of falsification of public document did not involve moral turpitude. Both the CSC and the CA strayed away from the settled jurisprudence on the matter. It will be absurd to insist that Salvador committed a mere error of judgment when the very basis of the second administrative charge against her was a final judgment of conviction where the trial court found otherwise.
Considering that the principal act punished in the crime of falsification of public document is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed, the elements of the administrative offense of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude clearly exist in this case. The Court does not have to look beyond what is simply apparent from the surrounding circumstances.
All told, if there is no compelling reason to deviate from what has already been established, settled principles and jurisprudence should be respected. To do otherwise would only create confusion and instability in our jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the August 31, 2012 Amended Decision53 and the February 20, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 120208 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The February 28, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals is UPHELD and REINSTATED.
1Rollo, pp. 5-10; Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring.
21 Id. at 5-10; Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Leoncia II. Dimagiba, concurring.
27 G.R. No. 167484, September 9, 2013, 705 SCRA 222.
28Catayas v. CA, G.R. No. 16660. August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 291, 295.
30PAL v. NLRC, G.R. No. 123294, October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 18. 41-42.
31RE: SC Decision dated May 20. 2008 in G.R. No. 161455 under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court v. Pactolin, A.C. No. 7940, April 24, 2012, 670 SCRA 366, 371.
32Teves v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009. 587 SCRA 1, 12; citing Dela Torre v. Commission on Elections, 327 Phil. 1144, 1150-1151 (1996).
33 MTCC Decision, rollo, p. 43.
36Fullero v. People, 559 Phil. 524, 542 (2007).
37Palo v. Judge Militante, 263 Phil. 3 15,321 (1990).
38 400 Phil. 785 (2000).
41 111 Phil. 569, 570-571 (1961).
42 127 Phil. 426, 429 (1967).
45 Presidential Decree No. 963, as amended.
46Dimapilis-Baldoz v. COA, G.R. No. 199114, July 16, 2013.
49Fullero v. People, supra note 36.
50Miel v. Malindog, 598 Phil. 594, 608 (2009).
52Duque III v. Veloso, G.R. No. 196201, June 19, 2012, 673 SCRA 676, 682.
53Rollo, pp. 5-10; Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Leonica R. Dimagiba, concurring.
54Rollo, pp. 5-10; Penned by Associate Justice Mar Abdulwahid and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.