CSC vs Cayobit

Facts
o Cayobit has been employed with the NHA since 1982. In 1990, she was appointed as a
Livelihood Specialist in some development project. The position was co-terminus with
the project, and did not require any eligibility.
Despite it not needing eligibility, she submitted a certificate showing her CSE
grade
Appointment approved by the CSC.
o Some years later another appointment was extended to her. This time it was as a
Senior Livelihood Officer. This position required CSE eligibility since it would be
permanent.
An NHA officer then found out that her eligibility was not made part of her
service card filed with the NHA. Upon checking, the officer found out that
Cayobit did not pass the CSE.
Officer referred it to the Director, who verified eligibility with the CSC-CO. The
NHA director found out that she obtained only a 40% grade (SHEESH)
appointment disapproved
o The CSC eventually charged Cayobit with dishonesty and grave misconduct
After hearing, found guilty.
Cayobit filed a Petition for Certiorari with the SC, which referred it to the CA.
Pursuant to jurisprudence, the CA was instructed to retrieve the answer sheet
of Cayobit. However due to the length of time since then, the answer sheets
had already been disposed of (every 5 years as per CSC memo.)
o CA granted the appeal no substantial evidence to show D/GM
CSCs MORE denied appeal to the SC.
Issues
o (1) W/N the masterlist of eligible (the one the officer checked) is not the primary record
of CSE to determine w/n passed the CSE?
o (2) W/N theres substantial evidence to uphold guilt?
Held
o (1) Yes
Admin code provides that CSC should keep a register of those who passed the
CSE. Pursuant to this, CSC keeps a list of eligible where those who passed and
those who failed are listed.
Lists full name, DOB, address
The masterlist is kept for verification purposes. It is used to determine whether
certificates of eligibility are true and correct.
It is officially prepared pursuant to constitutional and statutory mandates, and
is used to determine the eligibility of applicants. Ruling otherwise would leave
the government with no way to verify eligibility since certificates would
become uncontestable.
If we rely on cert.> list, susceptible to falsification.
o (2) Yes
Master-list clearly shows a failing grade (40%) while the cert shows an 81%
grade. Master = primary Cert. falsified + presumed to be correct.
Rules on evidence say so.
Failed to explain discrepancy no proof that the score in her certificate was by
mere error and not by own act couldnt even get a certificate from the CSC
that the CSC issued the said certificate.
Hence bare testimony of Cayobit vs. Records records!
Her three witnesses merely testify that they saw the Cert. but thats
about it.

It bears stressing that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is only
substantial.
It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,
even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.

The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe
that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct, even if the evidence might not be
overwhelming.