DENNIS C. LAZO, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

On November 11, 1988, the Civil Service Commission received a
letter from a certain Efren L. Pagurayan, reporting that petitioner Dennis C.
Lazo had boasted to him that he had bought his career service (subprofessional)
eligibility from the Civil Service Commission for P7,000.00, P4,500.00 of which
had been paid to the examiner and computer programmers in the Manila Office,
and P2,500.00 to the Regional Office at Tuguegarao.

Acting on the report, the CSC on December 18, 1989 directed its
Regional Office at Tuguegarao, Cagayan to investigate the matter. The Regional Office found that the
complainant was a fictitious individual and there being no witnesses to support
the allegation in the letter, the Regional Office on July 30, 1990 recommended
dismissal of the matter. Considering
the seriousness of the allegation in the letter, however, the CSC ordered the
examination answer sheets of petitioner retrieved and hand-checked by the
Office of Recruitment, Examination and Placement.

The rechecking disclosed that petitioner’s actual score was
34.48%, not 76.46% as indicated in his certificate of eligibility. Accordingly, the CSC charged petitioner with
dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of
the service, and ordered the Regional Office to conduct anew a formal
investigation of the case.

This was done, but again the Regional Office on July 24, 1991
recommended the dismissal of the administrative case for lack of evidence
linking petitioner to the irregularity.

In its Resolution No. 92-837 dated July 2, 1992, therefore, the
CSC dismissed the administrative charges against petitioner. However, it revoked his eligibility for
being null and void.

Petitioner asked for a reconsideration, alleging that Resolution
No. 92-837 was issued in violation of his right to due process and that the CSC
had found him to have failed the Civil Service Examinations without evidence
being presented to support the finding.

On December 1, 1992, the CSC denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration in its Resolution No. 92-1975, stating:

Manifestly, it is the clear intention of
the Commission to dismiss the same for lack of substantial evidence to support
the acts complained of. However, it is
discovered that the actual rating of Lazo was 34.40% instead of 76.46% as
appearing in his certificate of eligibility. Thus, being the central personnel agency of the government which is
mandated to safeguard the sanctity of any civil service examination, the
Commission had to revoke such grant of eligibility which was issued
erroneously. This action need not be
subject to any formal proceedings.

Hence, this petition for certiorari in which it is alleged
that the CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion and denied petitioner’s right
to due process as laid down in the case of Ang Tibay v. CIR,^[1] by unilaterally revoking petitioner’s
eligibility without a formal investigation or an opportunity given to him to
examine and go over his answer sheet in the Civil Service Examination of July 31,
1988.

The petition has no merit.

Under the Constitution, the Civil Service Commission is the
central personnel agency of the government charged with the duty of determining
questions of qualifications of merit and fitness of those appointed to the civil
service. Its power to issue a
certificate of eligibility carries with it the power to revoke a certificate
for being null and void.

The argument is made, however, that the CSC cannot motu propio revoke a
certificate of eligibility without notice and hearing to the examinees
concerned. While this is true as a
general proposition, in the context of this case, which simply involves the
rechecking of examination papers and nothing more than a reevaluation of
documents already in the records of the CSC according to a standard answer key
previously set by it, notice and hearing was not required. The question before the CSC did not require
any evidentiary hearing. Instead, what applied was the rule of res ipsa loquitur.^[2] Petitioner could have examined the
rechecking of his examination papers and, if he found anything wrong, he could
have asked for reconsideration. But,
while he filed one in this case, he did not show that his score was really
76.46%. He simply argued that he should
not be made to answer for an irregularity in which he had no participation and,
on this basis, asked the CSC for a formal investigation.

At all events, the filing of the motion for reconsideration
remedied whatever defect there might have been in rechecking the examination
papers of petitioner without his presence.^[3]
Petitioner was given the right to be heard, but, as already said, he did not
make good use of it by showing that his actual score was 76.46%, and not
34.48%. For that matter, even here
petitioner does not allege that his grade in the civil service examination is
76.46% and not 34.48%. All he is
alleging is that he should have been given a chance to see the examination
sheet himself.

Finally, the revocation of his certificate of eligibility does
not, as petitioner alleges, contradict the findings of the CSC that there was
no sufficient evidence to link him to the anomaly. The fact is that he failed the civil service examinations given
by the CSC on July 31, 1988. This fact
is not affected by the fact that his participation in the grade-fixing, which
led to the issuance to him of a void certificate of eligibility, has not been
proven. The certificate being void, it
did not confer upon him any vested right to be appointed to a position in the
government service.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Cruz, Bidin, and Romero,
JJ., on leave.

^[1]
69 Phil. 635 (1940).

^[2]
Cf. Richards v. Asoy, 152 SCRA 45 (1987).

^[3]
Montemayor v. NLRC, 77 SCRA 321 (1977); St. Thomas Aquinas v.
WCC, G.R. No. L-12297, April 22, 1959.