JOSEPHINE D. SUGABO, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

Sugabo versus Civil Service Commission

The Case

This is Josephine Sugabo against the Civil Service Commission, a petition for review brought under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court to challenge the Commission's decision and its resolution denying reconsideration. The petitioner had been found guilty of serious dishonesty and dismissed from the service, and she came to the Supreme Court asking it to reverse that judgment. The case matters far less for the dishonesty charge than for what the Court actually did with it: the Court never reached the merits, because the petition itself was defective in several respects. It is therefore a leading teaching case on the strict enforcement of the requirements of a petition for review, especially verification, proof of service, and the statement of material dates.

Procedural History

The case began in the Civil Service Commission Regional Office in Zamboanga City, which issued a decision finding the petitioner guilty of serious dishonesty and imposing the penalty of dismissal from the service, with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and a bar from taking civil service examinations. The petitioner elevated the matter to the Civil Service Commission itself. The Commission, in its decision of December 3, 2012, dismissed her petition for review but modified the regional office's ruling, finding her guilty of two counts of serious dishonesty. She moved for reconsideration, and the Commission denied that motion in its resolution of August 13, 2013. From that denial she went up to the Supreme Court by a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits; it dismissed the petition outright on procedural grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, Josephine Sugabo, was a public officer against whom the Civil Service Commission Regional Office in Zamboanga City rendered a decision finding her guilty of serious dishonesty. That decision carried the heaviest administrative penalty: dismissal from the service, together with cancellation of her civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and a bar from taking civil service examinations.

She sought relief from the Civil Service Commission. The Commission, in its decision of December 3, 2012, dismissed her petition for review, though it modified the regional office's ruling by finding her guilty of two counts of serious dishonesty rather than the original single finding. She filed a motion for reconsideration dated May 31, 2012, and the Commission denied it in a resolution dated August 13, 2013.

She then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review under Rule 43. On examination, the petition carried a cluster of procedural defects: it failed to state the material dates showing timeliness; it did not attach the motion for reconsideration it relied upon; its verification rested on personal knowledge alone even though much of it drew on the records of the tribunal of origin; it lacked proof of service on the tribunal and the adverse party; it did not explain why service and filing were not done personally; and its notarial certificates neither showed competent evidence of the affiant's identity nor indicated the notary's serial commission number, the province or city of commission, and the notary's office address.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review may be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, particularly the statement of material dates, the attachment of the motion for reconsideration, proof of service, and the explanation for non-personal service and filing.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for defective verification and certification against forum shopping, including improper verification and deficiencies in the notarial certificate.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirement. The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

This is the provision the Court invokes as the direct basis for dismissing the petition, since the defects it lists fall squarely within the requirements named.

Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 4. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.

This provision governs the petitioner's defective verification, which rested on personal knowledge alone although much of the petition drew on the records of the tribunal of origin.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must be dismissed. The defects were patent: the petition failed to state the material dates showing its timeliness, failed to attach the motion for reconsideration dated May 31, 2012, failed to attach proof of service on the tribunal concerned and on the adverse party, and failed to explain why service and filing were not done personally. These are precisely the matters that Section 7, Rule 43 makes a sufficient ground for dismissal, and the Court applied that provision emphatically.

On the second issue, the Court likewise held against the petitioner. The verification was improper because it was based on personal knowledge only, when in fact a greater portion of the allegations rested on the records of the proceedings in the tribunal of origin. The notarial certificate of the verification and certification against forum shopping did not show competent evidence of the affiant's identity, and it did not indicate the serial number of the notary's public commission, the province or city where the notary was commissioned, and the notary's office address. Quoting its earlier pronouncement, the Court reminded litigants that verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality, and that while the requirement is not jurisdictional in nature, it does not make it less a rule.

The Court acknowledged that rules of procedure must be used to facilitate, not to frustrate, the ends of justice. But it balanced that against a settled principle: the right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege, to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. A party who seeks to appeal must comply with the law's requirements; otherwise, he forfeits his privilege. Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.

Doctrine

First, the requirements for a petition for review under Rule 43 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them regarding proof of service, the contents of the petition, and the documents that should accompany it is a sufficient ground for dismissal under Section 7, Rule 43.

Second, verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality. A verification based on personal knowledge alone is improper where the allegations actually rest on the records of the tribunal of origin, and a pleading that lacks a proper verification is treated as an unsigned pleading under Section 4, Rule 7.

Third, the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and it may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review, and directed the Cash Division of the Court to return to the petitioner the amount of 470 pesos representing excess payment of docket fees.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality, and the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that is forfeited by non-compliance with the rules. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory requirements of a Rule 43 petition for review and the consequences of defective verification and certification against forum shopping.