Republic of the Philippines

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Regional Office No. 2
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

CADAMOSI, EDNA S. Admin Case No. 15-00___

Re: SERIOUS DISHONESTY and
FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL
DOCUMENT
x----------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

RESPONDENT, through counsel, to the Honorable Commission, respectfully states

THAT:

TIMELINESS OF FILING
THE POSITION PAPER

On October 29, 2015, Respondent, through counsel, had personally

received a copy of an Order from the Honorable Commission requiring the
respondent to submit her Position Paper within forty (40) days from receipt
thereof; hence, this document is now being seasonably submitted in faithful
compliance with the said Order dated October 22, 2015.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof

that the same were forged. Forgery cannot be presumed (Velosovs CA, 260 SCRA
593). The constitutional presumption of innocence is paramount such that when
the inculpatory facts and the circumstances underlying the defense admit of two
or more explanations, one is consistent with the innocence of the person being
charged and the other is with her guilt, the equipoise rule applies. When evidence
tilts both ways, the respondent must be declared innocent. It is the rule and shall
continue to be so.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Edna S.Cadamosi is an employee of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes

Office (PCSO) stationed at Ilagan City, Isabela. She was employed thereat on
October 17, 1994.

On October 22, 1995, she personally took the Civil Service Professional
Examination at San Francisco High School, Misamis St., Brgy.Sto. Cristo, Bago
Bantay, Quezon City where she garnered the score of 85.95 %. She is in the
government service for more than 21 years now, all of which were served with
the PCSO without interruption.

Sometime in 2013, when Edna S. Cadamosi had requested for an

authenticated copy of her Career Service Professional Certificate of Eligibility, the
picture attached to her application for Civil Service Examination was no longer
hers and so the Honorable Commission conducted investigation. Hence, this
administrative case against her.

When required to submit her counter-affidavit, Edna S. Cadamosi has

faithfully complied (copy of her counter-affidavit dated May 14, 2014 is hereto
attached as Exhibit “1”). In support thereof, she likewise submitted her Answer
dated July 20, 2015 (copy of which is hereto attached as Exhibit “2”).

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

Respondent has been honestly serving the government for more than two
(2) decades without committing any slightest infraction of the Civil Service rules.
But her being a dutiful servant of the people is punctuated by the instant
Complaint against her due to an alleged dishonesty occasioned by a disparity of
her actual physical appearance and the picture now appearing on the Picture Seat
Plan (PSP) incorporated in the files of the Civil Service Commission.

Respondent hereby maintains that she was the same person who
personally took the October 22, 1995 Professional Civil Service Examination at San
Francisco High School, Misamis St., BrgySto Cristo, BagoBantay, Quezon City. She
was the one who personally signed her application form and the Seat Plan
provided by the Honorable Commission. The factual averments in the Complaint
are hereby specifically denied as herein respondent ardently argues as follows:

a) When respondent took the Professional Civil Service Exam in 1995, she
signed the Seat Plan. Although her signature appearing therein is no longer similar
with her present signature, yet the same was her customary signature even
before she applied for work at the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO)
on October 17, 1994. The stroke of her signature appearing on the subject Seat
Plan and her present signature are substantially similar; hence, pertain to the
signature of one and the same person. As proof hereof, respondent had
endeavored to scan her previous public and official files in 1995 just to look for a
document bearing her same signature as appearing on the subject Seat Plan.
Fortunately, she was able to secure a copy of her Income Tax Return in 1995 and
a copy of an Office Order dated March 28, 1995 issued by Yamas B. Apinan (then
OIC-Ilagan PCSO Sub-Office) bearing also the signature of the respondent. Both
documents are already archaic and they form part of the public records, copy of
which are correspondingly marked as Exhibits “3” and “4” hereof;

Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

“ Sec 44. Entries in official records. – Entries in official records made in

the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence
of the facts therein stated.”

The Rules of Court went on further under Section 23, Rule 132, thus:

“ Sec. 23. Public Documents as evidence. – Documents consisting of entries

in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are
evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their
execution and of the date of the latter.”

b) It is beyond contestation that the signatures appearing on Exhibits “3”

and “4” are similar in all respects with the signature of Edna S. Cadamosi as
appearing on the subject Seat Plan. Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
provides that evidence respecting the handwriting may be given by a comparison.
On this score, the issue as to whether it was respondent Edna S. Cadamosi who
signed the Seat Plan is now resolved and herein profoundly justified;

c) The remaining problem now is the disparity between the actual

appearance of the respondent and the picture now attached to the subject Seat
Plan. Respondent hereby argues THAT:

- The picture attached to the subject Seat Plan is easily detachable one;
hence, can be replaced or altered. The professional civil service exam was taken
by the respondent in 1995. At that time, the respondent had to submit her
picture which will be attached to the Seat Plan either by staple wire or paste.
When the documents will be merged with other files and arranged in a topsy-
turvy manner, there is a strong tendency that the picture may be detached from
the Seat Plan it was previously attached. It is safe argument that the person who
re-attached the pictures to the Seat Plan did not know whose picture it belongs
and so he/she just randomly pasted it on any Seat Plan with detached pictures;
 - The examiner who closely monitored the professional civil service exam
on October 22, 1995 is presumed to have dutifully performed his/her assigned
task of seeing to it that the government examination was regularly conducted.
He/she could have readily detected that a person taking the exam is an impostor
or not considering that each examinee had his/her own identification card as
proof of their true and correct identity;

- Had respondent been represented by an impostor who took the civil

service exam for her, then the signature appearing on the Seat Plan would have
been totally different from the then customary signature of the respondent.
Exhibits “3” and “4” hereof are mute but eloquent proofs that respondent had
been using in 1995 the same signature as now appearing on the subject Seat Plan.
Such exhibits further bolster the logical contention of the respondent that the
picture appearing on the subject Seat Plan was inadvertently, if not erroneously,
detached and, thereafter, negligently attached or pasted on it by someone
responsible thereto;

- Respondent cannot now be faulted for the negligence of others. The

charge for falsification and serious dishonesty had caused respondent emotional
distress and tremendous psychological trauma considering the gravity of the
charge, not to mention that she has been dragged into the pit of extreme
humiliation;

d) For the past 21 years of her stint in the government service, respondent
has not experienced being charged before any tribunal or forum. It is her first
time to be facing an administrative charge such as this present complaint. She has
been serving the public with utmost diligence and dedication to duty. She must be
given premium for her excellence as public servant instead of punishing her for an
act totally not attributed to her.

The exhibits attached with this Position Paper are being formally offered
for the purpose for which they are being submitted and in support of the
defense of the respondent that she is innocent of the offense complained of.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, it is so respectfully prayed of

the Honorable Commission to completely exonerate herein respondent from any
administrative liability.

It is further prayed that the herein attached exhibits be deemed admitted

for the purposes for which they have been offered and render judgment on the
basis thereof.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Ilagan City, Isabela for Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, December 1, 2015.

ATTY. _________________
Counsel for the Respondent
City of Ilagan, Isabela
Roll No. ______
PTR No. PGI 59680___/03-03-2015
IBP Receipt No. 962___/1-09-2015
MCLE Compliance No. IV-002_____
Valid from 1-29-2015 until 04-14-2016
MCLE Compliance No. V-0005____
Valid from April 15, 2016 to April 14, 2019
 VERIFICATION

I, EDNA S. CADAMOSI, of legal age, Filipino, married and a bonafide

resident of Brgy. Magsaysay, Baggao, Cagayan, under oath, hereby depose and
state as follows:

1. I am the Respondent in the above-entitled Complaint;

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Answer;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts as stated therein are true
and correct based on authentic records;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature 1st day of

December, 2015 at Ilagan, Isabela.

EDNA S. CADAMOSI
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1st day of December, 2015 at

Ilagan, Isabela. I hereby certify that I personally examined the affiant and I am
satisfied that she has read and understood the contents of the Complaint and she
attested that the same is a product of her known free will. Affiant has exhibited
to me her Identification Card bearing her picture and signature as competent
proof of her identity.

Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2015

Copy furnished (via registered mail):

ATTY. M______ C_______, JR.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 02
TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN

Explanation:
A copy of the foregoing motion was duly furnished the Public Prosecutor
Civil Service Commission via registered mail pursuant to Section 7, Rule 13 of the
Rules of Court due to time constraint, distance and expenses to effect personal
service.

ATTY. ______________________