PATROCINIO BUENTIPO, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

The above entitled case is an
appeal direct to this Court from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Pan gasman, Hon. Amado S. Santiago, presiding, rendered in its Civil Case No.
U-449, in an action for declaratory relief. The appellant filed his brief on
January 3, 1962; the-Solicitor General filed the appellee’s on March 9, 1962.
On August 8, 1962 appellant moved for an early adjudication of the case. On
December 10, 1962 the case was referred to the Court of Appeals, because it was
found that the appeal involves issues of fact (the appreciation of the value of
conflicting evidence).

In the Court of Appeals and on
January 7, 1963, counsel for appellant filed a declaration ‘that appellant
waives all issues of fact raised in petitioner’s appeal and prayed that the
case be returned to the Supreme Court for decision. No objection having been
interposed the case was forwarded to this Court on February 22, 1963.

The original petition filed in the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan alleged that petitioner is a civil
service eligible, having qualified in the corresponding civil service
examination; that on November 27, 1956 he was appointed Chief of Police of
Pozorrubio, Pangasinan but because of the filing of a criminal action against
him, he was suspended from office; that when said case against him was
dismissed, he informed the Municipal Mayor of Pozorrubio thereof and prayed for
his reinstatement to his position of Chief of Police; that the Municipal Mayor
refused to reinstate him for the reason that petitioner is not a civil service
eligible; that desiring to prove his civil service eligibility he requested the
Commissioner of Civil Service to certify to the fact of said eligibility but
respondent informed him that petitioner’s eligibility was cancelled because he
had been dismissed as a patrolman in Bangued, Abra on August 16, 1941; that as
early as November 1940 when he was patrolman in the City of Baguio he informed
the Commissioner of Civil Service that it was not possible for him to have been
dismissed and thereupon asked the Civil Service Commissioner to reconsider his
dismissal and allow him to continue in the service, but the Commissioner
replied that lie had no authority to grant his request for reconsideration
because such matter is one that should be brought to the proper authorities,
that is the Office of the President; that petitioner’s eligibility under the
Civil Service Law could not be affected by a mere ruling contained in the index
cards of the Civil Service Commission; that the Commissioner of Civil Service
has no record of the administrative charge against him; that the index cards
which were used by the Commissioner of Civil Service as references in passing
on his eligibility are not true and correct because he was appointed third class
patrolman in Baguio City on May 1, 1941; so he prayed that his rights as a
civil service eligible be declared and that the respondent Commissioner of
Civil Service be directed and cancel the entries in the civil service records,
eliminating the alleged dismissal appearing therein for the reason that such
dismissal never occurred nor existed.

The respondent Commissioner of
Civil Service filed a motion to dismiss, but the court denied the motion; so
respondent filed his answer alleging that according to the records of his
office petitioner-appellant was dismissed from the service as policeman of
Bangued, Abra for violation of regulations and gross misconduct and that since
his separation from the service was for cause he lost his civil service
eligibility, for purposes of reinstatement. He denied that there is no record
of the administrative case against the petitioner and alleged that he has
records of the examination, service and docket cards, although no records of
the proceedings in the administrative case remain because the same had been
lost during the last war. He alleged that the decision in the administrative
case and the entries or notations in the different cards in the Bureau in
connection therewith are presumed to be regular, and that petitioner has failed
to exhaust all possible remedies which in this case is the appeal to the
President for relief from the dismissal for cause.

The decision of the court below,
which states the facts, is in part as follows:

“The evidence discloses that
in his decorate attempt to show the verity of his contention, the petitioner,
together with his witnesses, merely and daringly ventured in saying in court
under oath that he was never charged administratively during his incumbency as
municipal policeman of Bangued, Abra and that he docs not know or remember of
any administrative case filed against him. The petitioner has not, however,
shown by any iota of evidence of any improper or ulterior motives on the part
of the officials concerned why and how come that the notations or entries on
his examination card (Exh. 1), on his docket card (Exh. 2) and on his service
cards (Exhs. 8, 3-B and 3-C), upon which he seeks a declaration of his rights
thereunder and to have the said entries or notations thereon be cancelled and
corrected, were made or caused to be made, all of which evidently reflect on,
find refer to, his separation from the service on account of Administrative
Case No. A-4830 (Exhs. 1, 2, 3, 3-B and 3-C) proffered against him when he was
still a member of the police force of the municipality of Bangued, Abra. All of
the entries in these cards which are of pre-war or wartime vintajre were done
in the ordinary course of business by those charged to do so, and, therefore,
they are worthy of value and are reliable (Sec. 69 q) Rule 123 of the Rules of
Court. Furthermore, the other entries or notations in Exhibits 2, 3 and 3-C,
supra, show that other administrative charges against the petitioner had been
filed and the same were dismissed or dropped (Exhs. 3 and 3-C, supra), which
petitioner also denied having been filed against him, evidently serve to dispel
doubts or uncertainty as to the veracity and truthfulness of his dismissal from
the service, which fact of dismissal, moreover, is sufficiently supported by
other records (Exh. 11, particularly page 2) on file in the Records Division,
Executive Office, Malacañang.

“Insofar as the allegation of
the petitioner to the effect that lie has exhausted all administrative remedies
is concerned, the same cannot be given any weight and credit for the reason
that not only has the petitioner failed miserably to adduce any evidence in
support thereto but also that the evidence of the respondent to the contrary
conclusive disproves the same. * * * “

In this appeal, which has been limited
by the petitioner to questions of law, petitioner contends that the
examination, docket and service cards (Exhibits 1, 2, B, 3-B and 3-C) submitted
by the respondent-appellee are mere index cards and are not service records and
therefore are not competent nor conclusive proofs that his civil service
eligibility has been cancelled after due notice and hearing. Exhibit 1 is a
card containing the data about petitioner’s civil service examination and is
not questioned. But at the back thereof the following notations appear:

“Aug. 4, 1941 – Dismissed from
the service as policeman of Bangued, Abra, effective on his last day of service
with pay, for violation of regulations and gross misconduct. (Adm. Case No.
A-4830)”

Exhibit 2 reads as follows:

“Name: Buentipo, Patrocinio
Case No. A-4830 Position: Policeman Office: Bangued, Abra BS: Pat. Charges:
Unbecoming conduct (fighting with Metodio Venus)

Remarks: 11-18-40 (L, 11-13)
112-ll-25-40. Attach to A-4536 Gso 7/23. Decided 8/4/41 M 8/20/41. Dismissed,
L, 1-19-50, to Mr. P. Buentipo, thru Sec. of Int. with the necessary
information.”

Exhibit 3 reads as follows:

“Buentipo, Patrocinio
Memo Card
(Bangued)
Policeman Abra
Dismissed for violation of regulations and gross misconduct effective on his
last day of service with pay (Adm. Case No. A-4830, 8/4/41)

Exhibit 3-B reads in part as
follows:

“Buentipo, Patrocinio
Mun. Policeman Bangued, Abra
Dismissal-Violation of regulations”

Exhibit 3-C is as follows:

“Buentipo Patrocinio
Policeman Bangued (Abra)
AC A-404G, neglect, of duty, gambling & improper conduct, case dropped,
Dec. 11-1-40. Dismissed for cause (neglect of duty, viol, of regs. & gross
misconduct) eff. his last day of service w/pay (AC A-4830, Dee. 8-4-41)”

The question raised by the
appellant is one of law and is, that the above records are not admissible in
evidence to prove that petitioner-appellant was really dismissed for misconduct
and violation of regulations. An examination of the above exhibits clearly
shows that Exhibits 1 and 2 are the, cards containing1 the record of the
examination of petitioner-appellant in the office of the Civil Service
Commissioner. Exhibits 3, 3-B and 3-C art cards containing the service record
of petitioner, and they show that he was dismissed for violation of regulations
and gross misconduct. The third document is .also a record of the service of
the petitioner showing that he was also charged for neglect of duty, gambling
and improper conduct but the case was dismissed on November 1, 1940, but that
he was dismissed for cause (neglect of duty, violation of regulations and gross
misconduct) on, August 4, 1941.

The documents above set forth are
public records and contain entries made by the officers of the Civil Service
Commission in their capacities as such and in the ordinary course of business,
and therefore are included under the category of the following; rule on
evidence:

“Sec. 51. Secondary evidence
when original is lost or destroyed. -When the original writing has been lost or
destroyed, upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction, its contents
may be proved by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by the recollection of witnesses.” (Rule 123, Rules of Court)

It is a fact that the records of
the Civil Service Commission-about-the proceedings against petitioner Buentipo,
as all records of the Commission prior to the war, had been destroyed during
the last war. Assuming that the records of the proceedings in the
administrative case and the original decision had been destroyed, the notation
or gist of the decision contained in the card which was presented as Exhibit 3
is admissible as secondary evidence of the contents of the original under the
aforecited rule.

In view of the above legal
provision and principles We must find that the court below committed no error
in considering the above mentioned Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 3-B and 3-C as
competent evidence of the fact of the dismissal of the petitioner-appellant
because of gross misconduct and violation of regulations, his doubtful denial
to the contrary notwithstanding. In view of this resolution on the first
question it is not necessary to consider the second question raised in the
appeal.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ.,
concur.