×
ADVISORY!

The views and opinions expressed in this forum are those of the online action officers and not necessarily those of the Office for Legal Affairs or the Commission on CSC laws, rules and regulations. Also, be reminded that the views of the action officer is a mere advice that does not bind the office.

When posting, you agree that the administrator has the right to delete your posts or ban your account without prior warning in case of non-observance of any of the guidelines.
Guidelines to clients:

1. Please browse the frequently asked questions first to see if there are already the same or related questions that were asked on your query/ies;
2. Official response to issues shall be provided by the concerned office of the Commission, not through this forum;
3. Requests for the status of the case is not allowed in this forum;
4. Questions regarding the scheduled CSC examination will be deleted;
5. This forum is categorized according to subject matter. Please post your queries in appropriate category;
6. Post a descriptive topic name. Give a short summary of your problem/s;
7. No spam in this forum. Your posts will be deleted and your account will be banned without prior warning;
8. Refrain from posting pictures and offensive words or links. Violation of this rule shall give the administrator the right to delete your posts and ban your account without prior warning;
9. Please report to administrators if you see a user violating any of this guidelines;
10. Be respectful to the administrators and users; and
11. Please avoid text-message style substitution of words like “r” for “are” and “u” for “you”. If your message is difficult to understand the administrator shall inform you to rewrite your message.

Question Requisite of a valid complaint

More
2 years 1 month ago #9637 by finley gomez
finley gomez created the topic: Requisite of a valid complaint
Section 11 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) provides that CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF EVIDENCE is a requisite of a valid complaint.

Meanwhile, in the case of Civil Service Commission vs. Tristan C. Colanggo, G.R. No. 174935, April 30, 2008, respondent Colanggo filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals after the CSC ordered his dismissal from service. Colanggo alleged that the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 021412. He pointed out that the pieces of EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM WERE INADMISSIBLE AS THEY WERE UNAUTHENTICATED PHOTOCOPIES of the PBET application form, picture seat plan and PDS. The Supreme Court, in granting the petition filed by the CSC, held:

“Administrative rules of procedure are construed liberally to promote their objective and to assist parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses. Section 39 of the Uniform Rules provides:

Section 39. The direct evidence for the complainant and the respondent consists of the sworn statement and documents submitted in support of the complaint or answer as the case may be, without prejudice to the presentation of additional evidence deemed necessary but was unavailable at the time of the filing of the complaint and the answer upon which the cross-examination, by respondent and the complainant respectively, shall be based. Following the cross-examination, there may be re-direct or re-cross examination.

Either party may avail himself of the services of counsel and may require the attendance of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence in his favor through the compulsory process of subpoena or subpoena duces tecum.

The investigation shall be conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the truth without necessarily adhering to technical rules applicable in judicial proceedings. It shall be conducted by the disciplining authority concerned or his authorized representatives.”

"The CSC, in investigating complaints against civil servants, is not bound by technical rules of procedures and evidence applicable in judicial proceedings. The Court found that the CSC correctly appreciated the photocopies of PBET application form, picture seat plan and PDS (though not duly authenticated) in determining whether there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges against the respondent. Worth noting was that respondent never objected to the veracity of their contents. He merely disputed their admissibility on the ground that they were mere photocopies and not authenticated."

QUESTION- IS THERE A CHANCE FOR THE ADMIN COMPLAINT TO PROSPER EVEN IF THE EVIDENCES PRESENTED WERE UNCERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES BY INVOKING THE CASE OF CSC VS. TRISTAN COLANGGO?

Thank you very much. :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 1 month ago #9645 by Action Officer
Action Officer replied the topic: Requisite of a valid complaint
Good day,

Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the Commission does not render an opinion or advice on issues that may eventually be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it.

Section 11, Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) provides as follows:
“Section 11. Requisites of a Valid Complaint – No complaint against an official or employee shall be given due course unless the same is in writing, subscribed and sworn to by the complainant. In cases initiated by the proper disciplining authority or his/her authorized representative, a show cause order is sufficient.

x x x

“The complaint shall be written in a clear, simple and concise language and in a systematic manner as to apprise the person complained of, of the nature and cause of the accusation and to enable the person complained of to intelligently prepare his defense or answer/comment. XXX

“The complaint shall contain the following:

“a. full name and address of the complainant;

“b. full name and address of the person complained of as well as his/her position and office;

“c. a narration of the relevant and material facts which shows the acts or omissions allegedly committed;

“d. certified true copies of documentary evidence and affidavits of his/her witnesses, if any; and

“e. Certification or statement of non-forum shopping.

“The absence of any of the aforementioned requirements may cause the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice to its refilling upon compliance with the same."

Please take note that the provision states that "absence of any....may cause the dismissal of the complaint". It means that absence of any of the requirements does not automatically dismiss the complaint. And it also noteworthy that the Rules of Court admits exception to the rule that the original or certified photocopy be presented.

The Rules on Evidence provides as follows:

"B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

"Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. (n)

"1. Best Evidence Rule

"Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:

"(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

"(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;

"(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and

"(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. (2a)

"Section 4. Original of document. —

"(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.

"(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.

"(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. (3a)

"2. Secondary Evidence

"Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (4a)

"Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (5a)

"Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. — When the original of document is in the custody of public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (2a)

"Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a) However, be wary of the nature of the case/complaint filed since there are cases that are best prosecuted with complete documents."

Also, in your above-cited case of Colanggo, it was mentioned that, "photocopies of PBET application form, picture seat plan and PDS (though not duly authenticated) in determining whether there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges against the respondent. Worth noting was that respondent never objected to the veracity of their contents. He merely disputed their admissibility on the ground that they were mere photocopies and not authenticated."
Respondent did not question the truthfulness of the contents of the documents. Further, the PBET and PDS are documents in the custody of government offices such as PRC and CSC.


We hope to have guided you on the matter.

Very truly yours,

AO 777
The following user(s) said Thank You: Romar, finley gomez

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 1 month ago #9647 by Romar
Romar replied the topic: Requisite of a valid complaint
Thank you very much CSC Action Officers for always answering our queries. God bless always.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 1 month ago #9648 by finley gomez
finley gomez replied the topic: Requisite of a valid complaint
Kudos to all action officers of the Commission. Thank you for providing us free legal opinions. :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum