REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
__ DIVISION
MELENCIO ARNAIZ
Plaintiff-Appellant,

- versus

C.S.C. Case No. 33333-2013

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Defendant-Appellee,

COMMENT
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, by undersigned counsel, hereby
respectfully states that:
PREPARATORY STATEMENT
1. It was found by the CSC Legal Services that Petitioner
Melencio Arnaiz did not pass the 1982 accounting board
exams, and as such a formal charge was filed against the
petitioner.
2. On Novermber 8, 2013, CSC en banc issued a decision
dismissing the petioner and forfeiting his retirement benefits as
well as perpetually barring him from working in the government
for committing dishonesty.
3. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration by the same was
denied.
4. Petitioner filed a petition for review, hence this comment.

ASSINGMENT OF ERRORS
1. THE PETITION FOR REVIEW MUST BE DISMISSED FOR
NOT COMPLYING WITH THE RULES OF COURT
2. CSC DID NOT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW BY THE
MISAPPREHENSION OF THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE
CASE.
3. CSC DID NOT ERR IN IMPOSING THE CAPITAL PENALTY
OF DISMISSAL AND PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION ON
THE BASIS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS.

ARGUMENTS
THE PETITION FOR REVIEW
MUST BE DISMISSED FOR NOT
COMPLYING WITH THE RULES
OF COURT
The 1997 Rules of Court, Rule 43 Section 69(a) states that:
The petition for review shall (a) state the full
names of the parties to the case, without
impleading the court or agencies either as
petitioners or respondents;
The CSC being an agency of the government should not be
impleaded in the petition for review by the petitioner, and as such, for
being non-compliant with the formal requirements set by the Rules of
Court, such petition must be dismissed. 1
CSC DID NOT COMMIT AN
ERROR OF LAW BY THE
MISAPPREHENSION OF THE
MATERIAL FACTS OF THE
CASE.
1 Rules of Court, Rule 43, Section 7

As cited by the petitioner in his petition for review, the requirement for
administrative proceedings is not the highest quantum of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, requiring moral certainty to support
affirmative findings. Instead, the lowest standard of substantial
evidence, that is, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, applies. 2
The finding of the CSC Legal Services that the petitioner did not pass
the 1982 accounting board exams is enough substantial evidence to
prove that the petitioner did not have any qualifications to have the
job of chief school accountant, and while there is no other witness
which authenticated the PRC Certification that he failed said exams,
when he was tasked by the CSC to verify the certificate he did not
heed to the order, thus furthering the claim that such certificate is
legitimate.
CSC
DID
NOT
ERR
IN
IMPOSING
THE
CAPITAL
PENALTY OF DISMISSAL AND
PERPETUAL
DISQUALIFICATION ON THE
BASIS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
The CSC did not err in giving the harshest penalty to the
petitioner who misrepresented himself to have the qualifications of
chief school accountant, the awards and merits given to the petitioner
does not discount the fact that he is not qualified to do his job. The
offense of dishonesty certainly outweighs the years of service,
awards and merits because he got the job because of a
misrepresentation and without proper qualification.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed
that the Petition for Review filed by the petitioner be dismissed for
lack of merit.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
2 G.R. No. 190793. Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago vs COMELEC. June 19, 2012

Respectfully submitted.

By:
Irao & Irao Law
55th floor Tall Building,
6701 Ayala Avenue
Makati City
Tel. No.: 999-9999
Email: frontdesk@iraolaw.com

GENESIS PAUL C. IRAO

PTR. No. 5555555/5.5.2014
IBP Lifetime No. 555555
Roll No. 55555
MCLE Exemption No. III-555555
Tel. No. 999-9999 loc 999
Email: gci@iraolaw.com
Copy Furnished:
ALEXANDRIA JHOCSON
5/F Dominion Building
533 Benavidez Avenue, Makati City
Metro Manila

WRITTEN EXPLANATION

(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Filing and service of this Comment to the above-mentioned parties
was accomplished through registered mail since personal service
could not be effected due to the distance between the parties, and
the heavy volume of deliveries of the messengers of the law firm of
the undersigned counsel.

GENESIS PAUL C. IRAO