TABLE OF CONTENTS

De Rama v. CA
Remolona v. CA
Bernardo v. CA
CSC v. Belagan
Villanueva v. Quisumbing
Bacsin v. Wahiman
Narvasa vs. Sanchez
GSIS v. Mayordomo
Ganzon v. Arlos

unilateral act of the newly-assumed mayor.

CSC denied petitioner's request for the recall of the
appointments of the 14 employees for lack of merit.
o Rule V, Sections 9 and 10 of the Omnibus
Rules, and declared that the appointments of
the said employees were issued in accordance
with pertinent laws. Thus, the same were
effective immediately, and cannot be withdrawn
or revoked by the appointing authority until
disapproved by the CSC.
o also dismissed de Ramas allegation that these
were "midnight" appointments, pointing out that
the Constitutional provision relied upon by
De Rama vs. CA | CM
petitioner prohibits only those appointments
February 28, 2001
made by an outgoing President and cannot be
CONRADO L. DE RAMA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF
made to apply to local elective officials. Thus,
APPEALS
(NINTH
DIVISION,
THE
CIVIL
SERVICE
the CSC opined, "the appointing authority can
COMMISSION), ELADIO MARTINEZ, DIVINO DE JESUS,
validly issue appointments until his term has
MORELL AYALA, ARISTEO CATALLA, DAISY PORTA,
expired, as long as the appointee meets the
FLORDELIZA ORIASEL, GRACIELA GLORY, FELECIDAD
qualification standards for the position
ORINDA Y, MA. PETRA MUFFET LUCE, ELSA MARINO,

CSC upheld the validity of the appointments on the

BERNARDITA MENDOZA, JANE MACATANGA y ADELFO
ground that they had already been approved by the Head
GLODOVIZA and FLORENIO RAMOS, respondents.
of the CSC Field Office in Lucena City, and for de Rama's
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J
failure to present evidence that would warrant the
SUMMARY: Mayor de Rama wanted to recall the appointments of
revocation or recall of the said appointments.
14 employees, who were appointed by the former mayor 2 months

De Rama moved for the reconsideration of the CSC's

before the elections on the basis of the Constitutional prohibition
Resolution, as well as the Order of the CSC Legal and
against midnight appointments. CSC upheld the appointments,
Quasi-Judicial Division, averring that the CSC was
pointing out that said Constitutional prohibition does not apply to
without jurisdiction: (1) to refuse to revoke the subject
local government officials. CA ruled that there was no abuse of
appointments; and (2) to uphold the validity of said
power on the part of the former mayor in such appointments. SC
appointments, even assuming that there was failure to
upheld the validity of the appointments and ruled that the
present evidence that would prove that these
prohibition applies only to presidential appointments as there is no
appointments contravened existing laws or rules. CSC
law prohibiting local elective officials. Furthermore, de Rama did
erred in finding the appointments valid despite the
not allege fraud or irregularities in such appointments.
existence of circumstances showing that the same were
DOCTRINE: The constitutional prohibition on so-called midnight
fraudulently issued and processed.
appointments, specifically those made within 2 months

CSC denied MR.

immediately prior to the next presidential elections, applies only to

De Rama filed a petition for review before the CA,

the president or acting president, but not to local chief executives.
arguing that the CSC arrived at the erroneous conclusion
FACTS:

CA issued a Resolution: there was no abuse of the power

Upon his assumption to the position of Mayor of

of appointment on the part of the outgoing mayor.
Pagbilao, Quezon, petitioner de Rama wrote a letter

De Rama filed an MR: CA erred in upholding the CSC's

dated July 13, 1995 to the Civil Service Commission
(CSC), seeking the recall of the appointments of 14
resolutions despite the following defects: I. No screening
municipal employees
process and no criteria were adopted by the Personnel
o appointments of the said employees were
Selection Board in nominating the respondents; II. No
posting in 3 conspicuous public places of notice of
"midnight" appointments of the former mayor,
vacancy as required by the rules and the law; III. Merit
Mayor Abeja, done in violation of Article VII,
and fitness requirements were not observed by the
Section 15 of the 1987 Consti
selection board and by the appointing authority as

2 months immediately before the next

required by the Civil Service rules; IV. De Rama has valid
presidential elections and up to the end
grounds to recall the appointments of respondents.
of his term, a President or Acting

CA denied the MR.

President
shall
not
make
appointments
ISSUE/ HELD: W/N CSC and CA erred in ruling that the

Legal and Quasi-Judicial Division of the CSC issued an appointments made by the former mayor are valid (NO)
RATIO:
Order

CSC ruled, and correctly so, that the said prohibition

o since the claimants-employees had assumed
applies only to presidential appointments.
their respective positions and performed their
o There is no law that prohibits local elective
duties pursuant to their appointments, they are
therefore entitled to receive the salaries and
officials from making appointments during
benefits appurtenant to their positions
the last days of his or her tenure.
o Rule V, Section 10 of the Omnibus Rules which
o De Rama did not raise the issue of fraud on the
provides, in part, that "if the appointee has
part of the outgoing mayor who made the
assumed the duties of the position, he shall be
appointments. Neither did he allege that the said
entitled to receive his salary at once without
appointments were tainted by irregularities or
awaiting the approval of his appointment by the
anomalies that breached laws and regulations
Commission," the CSC Legal and Quasi-Judicial
governing appointments.
Division ruled that the said employees cannot
o His solitary reason for recalling these
be deprived of their salaries and benefits by the
1
2
5
7
11
13
15
16
20

PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 1

appointments was that they were, to his

personal belief, "midnight appointments" which
the outgoing mayor had no authority to make.
The grounds for the recall of the appointments that de
Rama raised in his supplemental pleading to the
consolidated appeal and motion for reconsideration are
that:
o (1) the rules on screening of applicants based
on adopted criteria were not followed;
o (2) there was no proper posting of notice of
vacancy; and
o (3) the merit and fitness requirements set by the
civil service rules were not observed.
These are grounds that he could have stated in his order
of recall, but which he did not. Neither did he raise said
grounds in his original appeal, but only by way of a
supplemental pleading. Failure of the petitioner to raise
said grounds and to present supporting documents
constitute a waiver thereof, and the same arguments and
evidence can no longer be entertained on appeal before
the CSC, nor in the CA, and much less in a petition for
review before the SC. In fine, the raising of these factual
issues for the first time in a pleading which is
supplemental only to an appeal is barred by estoppel.
CSC's ruling is supported by the evidence and the law.
14 employees were duly appointed following 2 meetings
of the Personnel Selection Board held on May 31 and
June 26, 1995. There is no showing that any of the
private respondents were not qualified for the positions
they were appointed to. Moreover, their appointments
were duly attested to by the Head of the CSC field office
at Lucena City. By virtue thereof, they had already
assumed their appointive positions even before de Rama
himself assumed his elected position as town mayor.
Consequently, their appointments took effect immediately
and cannot be unilaterally revoked or recalled by
petitioner.
Upon the issuance of an appointment and the
appointee's assumption of the position in the civil service,
"he acquires a legal right which cannot be taken away
either by revocation of the appointment or by removal
except for cause and with previous notice and hearing."
The person assuming a position in the civil service under
a completed appointment acquires a legal, not just an
equitable, right to the position. This right is protected not
only by statute, but by the Constitution as well, which
right cannot be taken away by either revocation of the
appointment, or by removal, unless there is valid cause
to do so, provided that there is previous notice and
hearing.
It was de Rama who acted in undue haste to remove the
private respondents without regard for the simple
requirements or due process of law. In doing so, he
overstepped the bounds of his authority.
Rule V, Section 9 of the Omnibus Implementing
Regulations of the Revised Administrative Code
specifically provides that "an appointment accepted by
the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the
appointing authority and shall remain in force and in
effect until disapproved by the Commission." Thus, it is
the CSC that is authorized to recall an appointment
initially approved, but only when such appointment and
approval are proven to be in disregard of applicable
provisions of the civil service law and regulations.
Sec. 20. Notwithstanding the initial approval of an
appointment, the same may be recalled on any of the
following grounds: (a) Non-compliance with the
procedures/criteria provided in the agency's Merit

Promotion Plan; (b) Failure to pass through the agency's

Selection/Promotion Board; (c) Violation of the existing
collective agreement between management and
employees relative to promotion; or (d) Violation of other
existing civil service law, rules and regulations.
Appointments of the 14 employees may only be recalled
on the above-cited grounds. And yet, the only reason
advanced by the de Rama to justify the recall was that
these were "midnight appointments." The CSC correctly
ruled, however, that the constitutional prohibition on
so-called "midnight appointments," specifically
those made within 2 months immediately prior to the
next presidential elections, applies only to the
President or Acting President.
Dispositive: Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.
J. Mendoza, dissenting

Majority overlooks that Art. VII, S15 is simply an

application of a broader principle that after the appointing
authority has lost the elections, his is the duty of a
prudent caretaker of the office, and, therefore, he should
not fill positions in the government unless required by the
imperatives of public service.
This rule binds all,
including mayors, who are vested with the power of
appointment, and it flows from the principle that a public
office is a public trust.

Only perfunctory compliance with legal requirements

o Appointments were made at 2 meetings of the
Personnel Selection Board, each meeting
lasting no more than an hour
o At both meetings of the board, former mayor
presided as chairperson
Midnight appointments whether made by the
President or by a mayor are bad, because they are
made hurriedly, without due deliberation and careful
consideration of the needs of the office and the
qualifications of the appointees, and by an
appointing authority on the eve of his departure from
office. Midnight appointments are bad because, as
the Aytona decision puts it, they offend principles of
fairness, justice and righteousness.
o Cannot be less bad because they are made at
the local level, by mayors and other local
executives

Hurried appointments of respondents detract from that

degree of good faith, morality, and propriety required for
appointments made by a faithful and prudent caretaker in
order to be considered valid.

Appointments null and void.

Remolona v. CSC | Dan
2 August 2001
ESTELITO REMOLONA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
J. Puno
NATURE:
Appeal to the SC
SUMMARY:
Petitioner Estelito Remolona is the Postmaster at the Postal
Service in Infanta, Quezon. His wife, Nery, is a teacher at
Kiborosa Elementary School. In 1991, DECS District Supervisor
Francisco America inquired from the CSC the status of Nerys civil
service eligibility. CSC Chair Patricia Sto. Tomas issued an Order
directing CSC Region IV Director Bella Amilhasan to conduct an
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 2

investigation on Nerys eligibility because her name was not in the

list of examinees. Moreover, Examination No. 061285, as
indicated in Nerys Report of Rating, belongs to a certain Marlou
Madelo. During preliminary investigation conducted by the CSC
Field Office, only Estelito appeared. There, he signed a written
statement admitting that he was responsible for acquiring the
alleged fake eligibility of Nery. A Formal Charge was filed against
the spouses, who were later found guilty of dishonesty by the
CSC. They were dismissed from the service. Upon MR, the CSC
absolved Nery. Estelito appealed to the CA, which affirmed the
CSC. Estelitos subsequent MR was denied; thus, the instant
Petition to the SC.
DOCTRINE:

The exclusionary rule under Sec. 12(2) of the Bill of Rights

applies only to admissions made in criminal investigation, not
to those in an administrative investigation.

The right to counsel is not always imperative in administrative

investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely
to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary
measure against erring public officers and employees, with
the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.

The rule is that dishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal, need

not be committed in the course of the performance of duty by
the person charged.
o Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the
officer or employee to continue in office and the
discipline and morale of the service.

The principle is that when an officer or employee is

disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such
officer or employee but the improvement of the public service
and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the
government.

The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public

Officials and Employees enunciates the State policy of
promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility
in the public service.
FACTS:

Petitioner Estelito Remolona is the Postmaster at the Postal

Service in Infanta, Quezon. His wife, Nery, is a teacher at
Kiborosa Elementary School.

In a letter dated 3 January 1991, DECS District Supervisor

Francisco America inquired from the CSC the status of Nerys
civil service eligibility.
o Nery purportedly got a rating of 81.25% (per Report
of Rating issued by the National Board for Teachers).
o America also received information that Nery was
campaigning for a fee of P 8 000 per examinee for a
passing mark in the board exams.

On 11 February 1991, CSC Chair Patricia Sto. Tomas issued

an Order directing CSC Region IV Director Bella Amilhasan to
conduct an investigation on Nerys eligibility.
o This was due to the absence of Nerys name in the
list of passing or failing examinees and in the list of
examinees for 10 December 1989.
o Moreover, Examination No. 061285, as indicated in
Nerys Report of Rating, belongs to a certain Marlou
Madelo, who took the examination in Cagayan de
Oro and got a rating of 65%.

During preliminary investigation conducted by Director Jaime

Pasion (Director II, Civil Service Field Office, Lucena City),
only Estelito appeared.
o Estelito signed a written statement of facts regarding

the issuance of Nerys questioned Report of Rating.1

Estelito admitted that he was responsible for
acquiring the alleged fake elegibility, which Nery had
no knowledge of, because he wanted them to be
together.
Director Pasion recommended the filing of the appropriate
administrative action against Estelito but absolved Nery from
any liability since it has not been shown that she willfully
participated in the commission of the offense.
A Formal Charge was filed against the Remolona spouses
and Atty. Salupadin for possession of fake eligibility,
falsification, and dishonesty.
o After formal hearing, Director Amilhasan issued a
Memorandum recommending that the spouses be
found guilty as charged and be meted the
corresponding penalty.
CSC adopted the recommendation and issued a Resolution
finding the spouses guilty of dishonesty and imposing the
penalty of dismissal and all its accessory penalties.
o The case against Atty. Salupadin (the person who
allegedly helped Estelito get the fake eligibility) was
held in abeyance pending proof of his identity.
Upon reconsideration, CSC absolved Nery from liability.
o CSC found no evidence to show that she used the
fake eligibility to support an appointment or
promotion. Also, the CSC found that Nery did not
indicate in her Personal Data Sheet that she
possesses any eligibility.
o Nery was ordered reinstated to her position as
teacher with back salaries and other benefits.
Estelito appealed to the CA, which affirmed the CSC decision.
o Estelitos subsequent MR was denied; thus, the
instant Petition to the SC.
o

Remolonas arguments

He should not be dismissed for an offense not related to his

official position in the government service.

His right to due process during the preliminary investigation

was violated because he was not assisted by counsel.
o The extrajudicial admission allegedly signed by him

1 3.1 That sometime in the first week of September, 1990, while riding in a
Kapalaran Transit Bus from Sta. Cruz, Laguna on his way to San Pablo
City, he met one Atty. Hadji Salupadin (this is how it sounded) who
happened to be sitting beside him;3.2 That a conversation broke out
between them until he was able to confide his problem to Atty. Salupadin
about his wife having difficulty in acquiring an eligibility;
3.3 That Atty. Salupadin who represented himself as working at the
Batasan, offered his help for a fee of P3,000.00;
3.4 That the following day they met at the Batasan where he gave the
amount of P2,000.00, requirements, application form and picture of his
wife;
3.5 That the following week, Thursday, at around 1:00 P.M., they met again
at the Batasan where he handed to Atty. Salupadin the amount of
P1,000.00 plus P500.00 bonus who in turn handed to him the Report of
Rating of one Nery C. Remolona with a passing grade, then they parted;
3.6 That sometime in the last week of September, he showed the Report of
Rating to the District Supervisor, Francisco America who informed her (sic)
that there was no vacancy;
3.7 That he went to Lucena City and complained to Dr. Magsino in writing x
x x that Mr. America is asking for money in exchange for the appointment
of his wife but failed to make good his promise. He attached the
corroborating affidavits of Mesdames Carmelinda Pradillada and
Rosemarie P. Romantico and Nery C. Remolona x x x;
3.8 That from 1986 to 1988, Mr. America was able to get six (6) checks at
P2,600.00 each plus bonus of Nery C. Remolona;
3.9 That Mr. America got mad at them. And when he felt that Mr. America
would verify the authenticity of his wife's Report of Rating, he burned the
original.

PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 3

is inadmissible because he was not assisted by

counsel and he was merely made to sign a blank
form.
His Motion for New Trial should be granted on the ground that
the TSN taken during the hearing of the case before the
Regional Office was not forwarded to the CA.
Dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits is too harsh
considering the nature of the offense, the length of his service
in the government, that this is his first offense, and the fact
that no damage was caused to the government.

where he is being administratively charged with a

grave offense which carries the penalty of dismissal
from service.

ISSUE 2:
Whether or not Estelitos removal was for cause (Whether or not a
civil service employee can be dismissed from the service for an

offense which is not work-related or which is not connected with

the performance of his official duty) (YES)
HELD 2:

Estelito argues that his dismissal is a violation of his right to

due process under Section 2(3), Article XI (B) of the
ISSUE 1:
Constitution which provides that no officer or employee in the
Whether or not the extrajudicial statement is admissible (YES)
Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for
HELD 1:
cause.

The right to counsel under Sec. 12 of the Bill of Rights is

o Although the offense of dishonesty is punishable
meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial
under the Civil Service law, such act must have been
investigation2.
committed in the performance of his function and
o Thus, the exclusionary rule under Sec. 12(2)
duty as Postmaster.
applies only to admissions made in criminal
o Considering that the charge of dishonesty involves
investigation, not to those in an administrative
the falsification of the certificate of rating of his wife
investigation.
Nery, the same has no bearing on his office and

While investigations conducted by an administrative body

hence, he is deemed not to have been dismissed for
may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact
cause.
remains that under existing laws, a party in an administrative
Dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable by
inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of
dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of
the nature of the charges and of the respondent's capacity to
the Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292.
represent himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish

The rule is that dishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal,

the person being investigated with counsel.
need not be committed in the course of the performance
o Respondent has the option of engaging the services
of duty by the person charged.
of counsel or not.
o The rationale is that if a government officer or

This is clear from the provisions of Section

employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or
32, Article VII of Republic Act No. 2260
grave misconduct, even if said defects of character
(otherwise known as the Civil Service Act)
are not connected with his office, they affect his right
and Section 39, paragraph 2, Rule XIV (on
to continue in office.
discipline)
of
the
Omnibus
Rules
o The Government cannot tolerate in its service a
Implementing Book V of Executive Order
dishonest official, even if he performs his duties
No. 292 (otherwise known as the
correctly and well, because by reason of his
Administrative Code of 1987).
government position, he is given more and ample
o Thus, the right to counsel is not always
opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his
imperative in administrative investigations
fellow men, even against offices and entities of the
because such inquiries are conducted merely to
government other than the office where he is
determine whether there are facts that merit
employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and
disciplinary measure against erring public
possesses a certain influence and power which
officers and employees, with the purpose of
renders the victims of his grave misconduct,
maintaining the dignity of government service.
oppression and dishonesty less disposed and

CAB: Estelito was not accused of any crime in the

prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and
investigation conducted by the CSC.
actuations x x x Dishonesty inevitably reflects on
o Said investigation was conducted for the purpose of
the fitness of the officer or employee to continue
ascertaining the facts and whether Estelito should be
in office and the discipline and morale of the
administratively charged or not.
service. (Nera v. Garcia)
o Perforce, the admissions made by Remolona during

Bautista
v.
Negado: The principle is that when an officer or
such investigation may be used as evidence to
employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the
justify his dismissal.
punishment of such officer or employee but the

Estalitos contention that he never executed an extrajudicial

improvement of the public service and the preservation
admission and that he merely signed a blank form was not
of the public's faith and confidence in the government.
given credence by the SC.

CAB: The SC found no reason to deviate from the findings of

o Remolona occupies a high position in government
the CSC and the CA.
as Postmaster at Infanta, Quezon and, as such, he
o The written admission of Remolona is replete with
is expected to be circumspect in his actions specially
details that could have been known only to him. No
ill-motive or bad faith was ever imputed to Director
2 Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no
Pasion who conducted the investigation.
The
longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on
presumption that official duty has been regularly
a particular suspect who had been taken into custody by the police to carry
performed remains unrebutted.
out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating

Regarding the failure to transmit the TSN, the SC held that it

statements. It is when questions are initiated by law enforcement officers
is entirely a matter of discretion on the part of the CA,
after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
pursuant to Revised Administrative Circular 1-95.
freedom of action in any significant way.
o Verily, the Court of Appeals decided the merits of
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 4

the case on the bases of the uncontroverted facts

and admissions contained in the pleadings filed by
the parties.
Regarding the harshness of the penalty the SC held that
[a]lthough no pecuniary damage was incurred by the
government, there was still falsification of an official
document that constitutes gross dishonesty which cannot
be countenanced, considering that he was an accountable
officer and occupied a sensitive position.
o Alawi v. Alauva: The Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees
enunciates the State policy of promoting a high
standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the
public service.

DISPOSITIVE:
Petition denied; CA affirmed in toto.
Bernardo v. CA | Nice
May 27, 2004
ARMANDO
F.
BERNARDO, petitioner, vs.
COURT
OF
APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and LAND BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
CALLEJO, SR., J.
NATURE: Petition for review under Rule 45
SUMMARY: Bernardo was an employee of Land Bank (LBP). In
1986, he deposited P500k to his personal savings account,
photocopied the page where the deposit was reflected, then
withdrew the amount on the same day. Thereafter, in his capacity
as Treasurer-in-trust of Markay, he executed a Treasurers
Affidavit and a letter-authority to the SEC certifying that the paidup capital of P500k had already been received by him and
deposited in his account as treasurer-in-trust, despite knowing the
falsity of the statement. The LBP filed charges against him for
falsification of documents, and dismissed him from service. Upon
appeal, the MSPB affirmed his dismissal, but upon a different
ground, that of misrepresentation amounting to dishonesty. The
CSC affirmed his dismissal, but again upon a different ground, that
of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the service
because he abused the confidence of LBP, his employer. Upon
reaching the SC, the SC agreed with the MSPB that his acts
amounted to dishonesty, and that the records supported the
finding of grave misconduct. As regards Bernardos argument that
said acts were not in the performance of his duties, the SC
disregarded the same and held that causes for the dismissal of a
public officer are not confined only to acts done in the
performance of his duties.
DOCTRINE: If a government officer or employee is dishonest or is
guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of
character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to
continue in office. The Government cannot tolerate in its service a
dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well,
because by reason of his government position, he is given more
and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his
fellow men, even against offices and entities of the government
other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his
office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power
which renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and
dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract
his evil acts and actuations. The private life of an employee cannot
be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects
on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and
the discipline and morale of the service.
FACTS:

Armando Bernardo entered government service on

November 5, 1975 as Claims Adjuster of the Land Bank
of the Philippines (LBP), a GOCC. In 1986, he was the

Head of the Loans and Discount Division of the bank. He

also maintained a savings account with LBP Baliuag
branch.
January 27, 1986: Bernardo deposited P500k in his
savings account. He then photocopied that page in his
bank passbook where the P500k deposit was reflected
and, on the same day, withdrew the said amount.
He also executed, in his capacity as treasurer-in-trust of
the Markay Trading and Manpower Services (Markay), a
Treasurers Affidavit, falsely certifying that at least 25%
of the authorized capital stock of the corporation has
been subscribed and 25% of the total subscription has
been paid and received by me in cash or property in the
amount of P500,000.00 in accordance with the
Corporation Code.
On the same day, Bernardo, still as treasurer-in-trust of
Markay, executed a letter-authority to the SEC,
authorizing the SEC to examine and verify the deposit in
the LBP, Baliuag, Bulacan, in his name as Treasurer-inTrust for Markay in the amount of P500k representing the
paid-up capital of Markay, which is in the process of
incorporation.
January 30, 1986: the AOI of Markay was registered with
the SEC. Bernardo signed the AOI, was one of its
incorporators, was also elected as a member of Markays
Board, and (according to his affidavit) was elected
treasurer of the corporation.
It turned out that while Bernardo was an elected treasurer
of Markay, he never opened an account with LBP Baliuag
for the account of Markay. In the meantime, Bernardo
was promoted to the position of Assistant Branch
Manager.
September 18, 1989: LBP, through its president,
Deogracias N. Vistan, filed a formal charge against
Bernardo charging him of gross neglect, grave
misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
bank, and serious violation of Civil Service Commission
(CSC) rules and regulations. LBP alleged that:
o Bernardo was elected to the aforementioned
positions in Markay without the permission and
authority required by the Civil Service rules and
regulations;
o While then duly employed with LBP, Bernardo
with utter bad faith attested and declared under
oath in his Treasurers Affidavit that he received
payment for 25% of the subscription of Markays
stock (the P500k) when he knew fully well that
such statements were false, since there was
neither any such cash or property ever paid and
received by him.
During the formal investigation, evidence was presented
that from Nov. 13, 1986 to Aug. 24, 1987, checkbooks of
Markay were signed by Bernardo, as treasurer, and his
wife.
Bernardo, for his part, presented the affidavits of a fellow
incorporator and the cashier of Markay, declaring that
only Maricar Butalid managed the corporation after its
establishment and that Bernardo was never seen in the
offices of the corporation. Bernardo also testified that he
did not own any shares in Markay, nor was he ever
elected to any position therein. He declared that
sometime in January 1986, he was approached and
invited to be an incorporator of the Markay, but while he
was almost convinced, he rejected the invitation. He also
claimed that since he did not engage in business, he did
not secure the permission of the LBP.
October 10, 1990: the hearing officer issued a resolution
(which the LBP approved) finding Bernardo guilty on two
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 5

counts:
against him by LBP (NO)
o Firstly, for engaging in business, occupation or RATIO #2:

Bernardo argues that:

vocation without securing the permission of the
LBP in violation of Sec. 36 of P.D. 807; and
o the formal charges against him were:
o Secondly, for committing acts of falsification

(a) engaging in business without the

amounting to GRAVE MISCONDUCT in
permission of his employer, the LBP;
office.

(b) stating falsities in his Treasurers

Bernardo was meted out the penalty of forced

Affidavit.
resignation.
o he was never charged of depositing P500k in

Bernardo appealed to the Merit Systems Protection

his name as treasurer-in-trust of the corporation,
Board (MSPB) which affirmed the LBP, but modified the
and of withdrawing the money on the same day
resolution in that he was found guilty of
without any board resolution authorizing him to
misrepresentation of a material fact amounting to
do so prior to the registration of the
dishonesty, and for engaging directly in a private
corporations Articles of Incorporation with the
business without the permission required by the CSC
SEC,
rules and regulations. It affirmed the penalty of dismissal
o hence, he was deprived of his right to be
from the service.
informed of the charge against him and to

Bernardo appealed to the CSC. The CSC, while affirming

adduce evidence in his defense.
the penalty, found Bernardo guilty of grave misconduct

CA: The decision of the CSC was based on the facts

and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
borne out by the records. The LBP, MSPB and CSC all
on grounds different from that found by the MSPB.
agree that Bernardo committed serious breaches of Civil
The CSC held that:
Service rules and regulations, which findings were all
o Bernardo abused the trust and confidence of
based on the same factual issues raised and proven in
his employer, LBP, since the P500k (which
the course of the proceedings. The only difference is how
could only have been withdrawn through a
these three adjudicating bodies denominated the offense
Board Resolution) could not have been
arising from the unlawful acts. Bernardo had actual
withdrawn by him on the same day had he
knowledge of said factual issues and had every
not been connected to the bank.
He
opportunity to refute them but failed to do so.
therefore committed Grave Misconduct and
o Even assuming arguendo that the CSCs initial
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
decision was defective, such defect was
the Service.
nevertheless cured when Bernardo filed MR, for
o Bernardo was absolved of the charge of
he was given the opportunity to be heard on
dishonesty in the execution of the Treasurers
said MR.
affidavit and the letter-authority.

SC: The CSC did err in finding him administratively liable

Bernardo filed MR, arguing that he was deprived of his

for depositing P500k and withdrawing the amount prior to
right to due process because he was found
the incorporation of Markay in the absence of any Board
administratively guilty for acts which were not included in
resolution authorizing him to do so, since it was not
the formal charges lodged against him by the LBP. The
alleged in the formal charges. Bernardo was deprived of
CSC denied his MR.
his right to be informed of the charges against him, and
to accord him the right to adduce evidence to controvert

The CA dismissed his petition for lack of merit; hence,

the said charges.
this petition.

HOWEVER, the CSC did not err in finding Bernardo

ISSUE #1:
guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to

W/N the CA erred in ruling that he violated Section

the best interest of the service based on the evidence
36(b)(24) of P.D. No. 807, which required permission
on record. (GO GO SC, ayaw niyo talaga pakawalan.)
of the head of office before engaging in business
o LBP adduced the requisite quantum of evidence
(NO)
to prove the second charge. Bernardo had no
RATIO #1:
deposit account as treasurer-in-trust of Markay

Bernardo: He resigned from Markay even before the

in the said bank. He deposited the amount
corporation started its business operations. He asserts
of P500k in his personal account. This
that there is no evidence on record that he actually
transaction was reflected in his passbook. A
engaged in business.
cursory reading of the passbook would lead one

SC: We disagree.
to conclude that Bernardo had deposited the

The evidence on record shows that he was not only an

P500k, without disclosing, however, that he also
incorporator, but was also a member of the BOD and
withdrew it on the same day.
was, in fact, the treasurer of Markay. Even after its
o
He thus made a false statement in his
incorporation, Bernardo remained as a stockholder and a
January 27, 1986 Letter to the SEC, when he
member of the BOD. He was even elected treasurer of
stated that as treasurer-in-trust of the Markay he
the corporation. He and his wife signed check vouchers
had deposited P500k in his account in LBP
of the corporation from November 16, 1986 to August 24,
Baliuag, when the truth was the money was
1987.
deposited in his personal savings account and

During the hearings, Bernardo also admitted that before

was also withdrawn on the same day.
he engaged in business, he failed to secure the

He himself admitted, on cross-examination, that he

permission of his employer.
deposited the said amount not in his capacity as the
ISSUE #2:
treasurer-in-trust of the corporation.

W/N Bernardo was deprived of his right to due

The SC agreed with the MSPB in holding that by his

process when he was found guilty by the CSC based
actuations, Bernardo is guilty of dishonesty:
on acts not covered by the formal charges lodged
o The MSPB ruled that this was a case of
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 6

Misrepresentation amounting to Dishonesty

and not Falsification of Official Documents.
Misrepresentation is defined as a false
statement about material fact in any contract
or other transaction that misleads the party
to whom it is made. Similarly, Dishonesty is
the concealment or distortion of truth in a
matter of fact.
o In misrepresentation of a material fact, he made
it appear that his personal account in LBP
belongs to Markay placed in his name as
Treasurer-in-Trust, for purposes of issuance of
certificate of incorporation, by the SEC and by
concealing
the
truth
he
committed
dishonesty or deceit and put the integrity of
the Bank in jeopardy to the prejudice of the
banking operation and to the damage of the
creditors, if any, of the corporation.

The evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt,

since by his conduct, Bernardo violated the yardstick of
public service imposed in Section 1, Article XI of the
Constitution which enunciates the state policy of
promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost
responsibility in the public service. Being a public officer,
he is enjoined by no less than the highest law of the land
and his employer, the LBP, to uphold public interest over
his personal interest at all times.
ISSUE #3 (MAIN):

W/N Bernardo should not have been found guilty

since said acts were not done in the performance of
duty (NO)
RATIO #3:
The causes which warrant the dismissal of a civil
servant need not necessarily be work-related or
committed in the course of the performance of duty
by the person charged.

In Remolona v. CSC (citing Nera v. Garcia):

o [I]f a government officer or employee is
dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave
misconduct, even if said defects of character
are not connected with his office, they affect
his right to continue in office. The
Government cannot tolerate in its service a
dishonest official, even if he performs his duties
correctly and well, because by reason of his
government position, he is given more and
ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty
against his fellow men, even against offices and
entities of the government other than the office
where he is employed; and by reason of his
office, he enjoys and possesses a certain
influence and power which renders the victims
of his grave misconduct, oppression and
dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist
and to counteract his evil acts and actuations.
The private life of an employee cannot be
segregated from his public life. Dishonesty
inevitably reflects on the fitness of the
officer or employee to continue in office and
the discipline and morale of the service.
(sorry kung mahaba but baka tanungin)

The principle is that when an officer or employee is

disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of
such officer or employee but the improvement of the
public service and the preservation of the publics faith
and confidence in the government.
DISPOSITION

Affirmed CA. Petition denied.

CSC v. Belagan | Kat

October 19, 2004
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner,
BELAGAN, respondent.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

vs.

ALLYSON

SUMMARY: 2 separate complaints were filed respectively by

Magdalena Gapuz, founder/directress of the Mother and Child
Learning Center, and Ligaya Annawi, a public school teacher at
Fort Del Pilar Elementary School, against Dr. Allyson Belagan,
Superintendent of DECS City. Magdalena charged Belagan with
sexual indignities and harassment, while Ligaya accused him of
sexual harassment and various malfeasances. CSC ruled he was
guilty. CA reversed. SC reversed CA and affirmed CSC. Belagan
was found guilty of grave misconduct as established by the
positive testimony of Magdalena and Ngabit. He is suspended for
1 year w/o pay.
DOCTRINE:
In grave misconduct as distinguished from simple misconduct,
the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or
flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.
Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act
of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully
uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or
for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.
FACTS:

2 separate complaints were filed respectively by

Magdalena Gapuz, founder/directress of the Mother
and Child Learning Center, and Ligaya Annawi, a
public school teacher at Fort Del Pilar Elementary
School, against Dr. Allyson Belagan, Superintendent of
the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS), all from Baguio City. Magdalena charged
Belagan with sexual indignities and harassment, while
Ligaya accused him of sexual harassment and various
malfeasances.
Magdalena case

March 1994: Magdalena filed an application with the

DECS Office in Baguio City for a permit to operate a
pre-school. One of the requisites for the issuance of the
permit was the inspection of the school premises by the
DECS Division Office.

Since the officer assigned to conduct the inspection was

not present, Belagan volunteered his services.

June 1994: Belagan and Magdalena visited the school.

In the course of the inspection, while both were

descending the stairs of the second floor, Belagan
suddenly placed his arms around her shoulders and
kissed her cheek. Dumbfounded, she muttered, Sir, is
this part of the inspection? Pati ba naman kayo sa DECS
wala ng values? Belagan merely sheepishly smiled.
There were no other people in the area.

Fearful that her application might be jeopardized and that

her husband might harm Belagan, Magdalena just kept
quiet.

Several days later, Magdalena went to the DECS Division

Office and asked Belagan, Sir, kumusta yung application
ko? His reply was Mag-date muna tayo. She declined,
explaining that she is married. She then left and reported
the matter to DECS Assistant Superintendent Peter
Ngabit.

Magdalena never returned to the DECS Division Office to

follow up her application.

She was forced to reveal the incidents to her husband

PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 7

when he asked why the permit has not yet been

released. Thereupon, they went to the office of the
Belagan who denied having a personal relationship with
Magdalena.

Thereafter, Belagan forwarded to the DECS Regional

Director his recommendation to approve Magdalenas
application for a permit to operate a pre-school.

September 1994: Magdalena read from a local

newspaper that certain female employees of the DECS in
Baguio City were charging a high-ranking DECS official
with sexual harassment. Upon inquiry, she learned that
the official being complained of was Belagan.

Magdalena wrote a letter-complaint for sexual

indignities and harassment to former DECS Secretary
Ricardo Gloria.

October 4, 1994: Belagan was placed under suspension.

Ligaya case

On four separate occasions: Belagan touched her

breasts, kissed her cheek, touched her groins,
embraced her from behind and pulled her close to
him, his organ pressing the lower part of her back.

She also charged Belagan with:

o (1) delaying the payment of the teachers
salaries;
o (2) failing to release the pay differentials of
substitute teachers;
o (3) willfully refusing to release the teachers
uniforms,
proportionate
allowances
and
productivity pay; and
o (4) failing to constitute the Selection and
Promotion Board, as required by the DECS
rules and regulations.
Joint Investigation

DECS conducted a joint investigation of the complaints of

Magdalena and Ligaya.

Belagan denied their charge of sexual harassment.

However, he presented evidence to disprove Ligayas
imputation of dereliction of duty.

DECS Secretarys Joint Decision (January 9, 1995):

found Belagan guilty of 4 counts of sexual indignities or
harassments committed against Ligaya; and 2 counts of
sexual advances or indignities against Magdalena. He
was ordered dismissed from the service (w/ prejudice to
reinstatement and all his retirement benefits and other
remunerations due him are forfeited in favor of the govt).
He was absolved of all other charges of administrative
malfeasance or dereliction of duty.

CSC (September 23, 1996): Affirmed DECS Sec in the

case filed by Magdalena but dismissed the complaint of
Ligaya. Belagans transgression against Magdalena
constitutes grave misconduct.
o The acts of Belagan are serious breach of good
conduct since he was holding a position which
requires the incumbent thereof to maintain a
high degree of moral uprightness. As Division
Superintendent,
Belagan
represents
an
institution tasked to mold the character of
children. Furthermore, one of his duties is to
ensure that teachers in his division conduct
themselves properly and observe the proper
discipline. Any improper behavior on his part will
seriously impair his moral ascendancy over the
teachers and students which can not be
tolerated. Therefore, his misconduct towards
an applicant for a permit to operate a private
pre-school cannot be treated lightly and
constitutes the offense of grave misconduct.

Belagan: He has never been charged of any offense in

his 37 years of service. By contrast, Magdalena was
charged with several offenses3. The numerous cases
filed against Magdalena cast doubt on her character,
integrity, and credibility.

CSC (April 11, 1997): denied MR

o The character of a woman who was the
subject of a sexual assault is of minor
significance in the determination of the guilt
or innocence of the person accused of
having committed the offense. This is so
because even a prostitute or a woman of ill
repute may become a victim of said offense.
o As such, the fact that complainant Magdalena
Gapuz is shown to have had cases before the
regular courts for various offenses and was
condemned by her community for wrongful
behavior does not discount the possibility that
she was in fact telling the truth when she cried
about the lecherous advances made to her by
the Belagan.

CA (January 8, 1998): reversed the CSC Resolutions and

dismissed Magdalenas complaint.
o Magdalena is an unreliable witness, her
character being questionable. Given her
aggressiveness and propensity for trouble, she
is not one whom any male would attempt to
steal a kiss. In fact, her record immediately
raises an alarm in any one who may cross her
path.
o His unblemished service record for 37 years
was considered

Hence, petition for review on certiorari

Belagan: Magdalenas derogatory record undermines the

verity of her charge and that the Court of Appeals is
correct in dismissing it.
ISSUE: W/N complaining witness, Magdalena Gapuz, is credible?
RATIO:
Question of Fact

This is a question of fact which, as a general rule, is not

subject to this Courts review.

Factual findings of the Court of Appeals, if supported by

substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding on the
parties and are not reviewable by this Court. This Court
is, after all, not a trier of facts. One of the exceptions,
however, is when the findings of the Court of Appeals are
contrary to those of the trial court or a quasi-judicial body,
like CSC.

Here, the Court of Appeals and the CSC are poles apart
in their appreciation of Magdalenas derogatory record.
While the former considered it of vital and paramount
importance in determining the truth of her charge, the
latter dismissed it as of minor significance. This
contrariety propels us to the elusive area of character

3 22

cases in MTC: Light/Grave oral defamation, slight physical injuries,

grave threats, malicious mischief, light threats, unjust vexation; 22
complaints in Barangay: Grave threats, rumor mongering, unjust vexation,
oral defamation, false accusation, harassment, threats, habitual trouble
maker, spreading rumors against Barangay Captain and Police Chief,
called all the residents of their Barangay for an emergency meeting and
where she shouted invectives against the residents, shouting invectives,
terrorizing the council meeting, quarreling, tapping electric wire with
owners consent, shouting, complaining about alleged poisoned sardines
near the premises of her residence which killed her hen, shouting
unpleasant words around the neighborhood. She did not like the
actuations of a bayanihan group near the waiting shed.

PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 8

and reputation evidence.

Character

Generally, the character of a party is regarded as legally

irrelevant in determining a controversy.

One statutory exception is that relied upon by Belagan,

i.e., Section 51 (a) 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence
o SEC. 51. Character evidence not generally
admissible; exceptions.
o (a) In Criminal Cases:
o xxxxxx
o (3) The good or bad moral character of the
offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense
charged.

The above provision pertains only to criminal cases, not

to administrative offenses.

Even assuming that this technical rule of evidence can be

applied here, still, we cannot sustain Belagans posture.

Not every good or bad moral character of the offended

party may be proved under this provision. Only those
which would establish the probability or improbability of
the offense charged. This means that the character
evidence must be limited to the traits and
characteristics involved in the type of offense
charged.
o Thus, on a charge of rape - character for
chastity, on a charge of assault - character for
peaceableness or violence, and on a charge of
embezzlement - character for honesty. In one
rape case, where it was established that the
alleged victim was morally loose and apparently
uncaring about her chastity, we found the
conviction of the accused doubtful.

In the present administrative case for sexual harassment,

Belagan did not offer evidence that has a bearing on
Magdalenas chastity.
o What he presented are charges for grave oral
defamation, grave threats, unjust vexation,
physical injuries, malicious mischief, etc. filed
against her.
o These pieces of evidence are inadmissible
under the above provision because they do not
establish the probability or improbability of the
offense charged.

Credibility

In invoking the Sec. 51, what Belagan was trying to

establish is Magdalenas lack of credibility and not the
probability or the improbability of the charge. In this
regard, a different provision applies.

Credibility means the disposition and intention to tell the

truth in the testimony given. It refers to a persons
integrity, and to the fact that he is worthy of belief. A
witness may be discredited by evidence attacking his
general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity.

Rule 132 of the same Revised Rules on Evidence:

o SEC. 11. Impeachment of adverse partys
witness. A witness may be impeached by the
party against whom he was called, by
contradictory evidence, by evidence that his
general reputation for truth, honesty, or
integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has
made at other times statements inconsistent
with his present testimony, but not by
evidence of particular wrongful acts, except

that it may be shown by the examination of the

witness, or the record of the judgment, that
he has been convicted of an offense.
Although she is the offended party, Magdalena, by
testifying in her own behalf, opened herself to character
or reputation attack pursuant to the principle that a party
who becomes a witness in his own behalf places
himself in the same position as any other witness,
and may be impeached by an attack on his character
or reputation.
CA is correct in holding that the character or reputation of
a complaining witness in a sexual charge is a proper
subject of inquiry.
Is Magdalenas derogatory record sufficient to
discredit her credibility? No!
First, most of the twenty-two (22) cases filed with the
MTC of Baguio City relate to acts committed in the 80s,
particularly, 1985 and 1986. With respect to the
complaints filed with the Chairmen of Barangay Gabriela
Silang and Barangay Hillside, the acts complained of
took place in 1978 to 1979. In the instant administrative
case, the offense was committed in 1994.
o Those cases and complaints are no longer
reliable proofs of Magdalenas character or
reputation. The Court of Appeals, therefore,
erred in according much weight to such
evidence.
o Evidence of ones character or reputation
must be confined to a time not too remote
from the time in question. What is to be
determined is the character or reputation of
the person at the time of the trial and prior
thereto, but not at a period remote from the
commencement of the suit.
o When the credibility of a witness is sought to
be impeached by proof of his reputation, it is
necessary that the reputation shown should
be that which existed before the occurrence
of the circumstances out of which the
litigation arose, or at the time of the trial and
prior thereto, but not at a period remote from
the commencement of the suit. This is
because a person of derogatory character or
reputation can still change or reform himself.
o Hence, to say that Magdalenas credibility is
diminished by proofs of tarnished reputation
existing almost a decade ago is unreasonable.
o It is unfair to presume that a person who has
wandered from the path of moral righteousness
can never retrace his steps again. Certainly,
every person is capable to change or reform.
Second, Belagan failed to prove that Magdalena was
convicted in any of the criminal cases specified by
respondent.
o It is not permissible to show that a witness has
been arrested or that he has been charged
with or prosecuted for a criminal offense, or
confined in jail for the purpose of impairing his
credibility.
o This view has usually been based upon one or
more of the following grounds or theories:
(a) that a mere unproven charge
against the witness does not logically
tend to affect his credibility,
(b) that innocent persons are often
arrested or accused of a crime,
(c) that one accused of a crime is
presumed to be innocent until his guilt
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 9

is legally established, and

(d) that a witness may not be
impeached or discredited by evidence
of particular acts of misconduct.
o Section 11, Rule 132 of our Revised Rules on
Evidence provides that a witness may not be
impeached by evidence of particular wrongful
acts. Such evidence is rejected because of the
confusion of issues and the waste of time that
would be involved, and because the witness
may not be prepared to expose the falsity of
such wrongful acts.
o As it happened in this case, Magdalena was not
able to explain or rebut each of the charges
against her listed by Belagan.
Substantial Evidence
What convinces us to sustain the Resolution of the CSC
is the fact that it is supported by substantial evidence.
Magdalena testified in a straightforward, candid and
spontaneous manner. Her testimony is replete with
details, such as the number of times she and respondent
inspected the pre-school, the specific part of the stairs
where Belagan kissed her, and the matter about her
transient boarders during summer. Magdalena would not
have normally thought about these details if she were not
telling the truth.4
The above testimony does not stand in isolation. It is
corroborated by Peter Ngabit, DECS Assistant Division
Superintendent. Ngabit testified that Magdalena reported
to him that respondent kissed her and asked her for a

date.5
We cannot debunk Magdalenas positive testimony and
that of Ngabit simply because of the Court of Appeals
outdated characterization of Magdalena as a woman of
bad reputation.
There are a number of cases where the triers of fact
believe the testimony of a witness of bad character and
refuse to believe one of good character.
Even a witness who has been convicted a number of
times is worthy of belief, when he testified in a
straightforward and convincing manner.
More than anybody else, it is the DECS investigating
officials who are in a better position to determine whether
Magdalena is telling the truth considering that they were

A Sir, on the second time that we went up and I mentioned about

these transients that I had then and he wanted to stay in the place in
one of the rooms and then I declined and I was still showing the
rooms simultaneously. On the last, the biggest room that I had, he
said, No. Never mind, I am not going to see that anymore. So he
waited for me there and upon reaching the place, as I was to step
down on the first step going down, he placed his arm and held me
tightly and planted the kiss on my cheek, sir
Q You said that he wanted to stay in one of the rooms?
A Yes, sir, as a boarder.
Q Is that room used for transients?
A During that time, sir, during the summertime, I made use of the time to
get some transients.
Q And he was telling you that he wanted to occupy one of the rooms?
A Yes, but I declined, sir for delicadeza.
Q At that time, there were no transients yet.
A When he came over for the inspection sir, nobody was there.

Testimony during the cross-examination conducted by DECS Assistant

Secretary Romeo Capinpin and Undersecretary Antonio Nachura:Q Was
there any conversation between you and Dr. Belagan during the inspection
on the first floor and the second floor?
A There was, sir. It was a casual conversation that we had with regard to
my family, background, how the school came about, how I started with the
project. That was all, sir.
Q Nothing about any form of sexual harassment, in words or in deeds?
A Sir, because he inspected the second floor twice, sir. We went up to the
stairs twice, sir.
Q Why?
A I really dont know what was the reason behind, sir. But on the second
inspection, sir, I told him that as of that time I had some transients with me.
I was making use of the premises for transients because that was summer
then, sir. And I already started paying the place so I said, Sir, I have some
transients with me in the evening and he said, You know Mrs. Gapuz, I am
interested to stay in one of the rooms as one your boarders. But I
respectfully declined saying, Sir, I think for delicadeza I cannot accept you.
Not that I dont want you to be here but people might think that I am
keeping you here and that would prejudice my permit, sir.
ASEC R. CAPINPIN:
Q When did the alleged kissing occur? Was it during the first time
that you went up with him or the second time?
A No, sir, on the second time, sir.
Q Second time?
A Yes, sir. We were going down, sir
Q And you were going down?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall what portion of the stairs where you were during the
alleged kissing?
A Sir, on the topmost of the stairs.
Q Before you went down?
A Yes, sir. At the topmost because there is a base floor going up to
the stairs and it has 16 steps.
Q So, it was not on the 16th step but still on the topmost?
A Yes sir.
Q Part of the floor of the building?
A Yes, sir. Topmost, sir?
ASEC R. CAPINPIN:
Q Will you kindly tell us your relative position at that time?

5 Q I would like to call your attention to Exhibit A which is the affidavit of

Mrs. Magdalena B. Gapuz, particularly item no. 8, and may I read for your
information That the Monday after the incident, I went to the DECS
Division Office expecting to get favorable recommendation from the DECS
Regional Office for the issuance of my permit. That I proceeded to the
Superintendent and asked him, Sir, kumusta yung application ko and he
said, mag date muna tayo but I refused and explained that I am married,
after which I proceeded to the Office of Asst. Superintendent Peter Ngabit
to relate the incident and then left the Division Office. Do you remember if
Mrs. Gapuz went to your Office on the particular day?A Yes, sir.
Q What time was that?
A I cannot remember, sir.
Q Was it morning, afternoon?
A I think it was in the morning, sir.
Q Morning.
A Yes, sir.
Q Early morning?
A About noon, sir.
Q What transpired between you and Mrs. Gapuz in your office?
A When she came to my Office, she was relating about that and she was
even insulting me saying among others that I was a useless fixture in that
Office because I cannot do anything with the processing of her paper or
application.
Q It says here that she would relate the incident to you. Did she relate
any incident?
A Yes, she did sir.
Q What was that incident all about?
A She was saying that when Mr. Belagan went to visit her school, he
stole a kiss from her and that she was saying that when she asked
Supt. Belagan for her papers, she was asked for a date before the
Indorsement. After that, she left.

PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 10

able to hear and observe her deportment and manner of

testifying.
No Motive

In reversing the CSCs Resolutions, the Court of Appeals

ruled that there is ample evidence to show that
Magdalena had a motive in accusing Belagan, i.e., to
pressure him to issue a permit. Unconvincing!

Belagan had already issued the permit when Magdalena

filed her letter-complaint. Indeed, she had no more
reason to charge Belagan administratively, except of
course to vindicate her honor.
Grave Misconduct

CSC prays that we sustain its ruling penalizing

Belaganfor grave misconduct and not merely for
disgraceful or immoral conduct which is punishable by
suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1)
year for the first offense.

Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate

violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior,
especially by a government official.

To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct

should relate to or be connected with the
performance of the official functions and duties of a
public officer.

In grave misconduct as distinguished from simple

misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent
to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established
rule, must be manifest.

Corruption as an element of grave misconduct

consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person
who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or
character to procure some benefit for himself or for
another person, contrary to duty and the rights of
others.

This (corruption) is present in Belagans case as it

concerns not only a stolen kiss but also a demand for a
date, an unlawful consideration for the issuance of a
permit to operate a pre-school.

Belagans act clearly constitutes grave misconduct,

punishable by dismissal.
Penalty of dismissal

We are, however, not inclined to impose the penalty of

dismissal from the service.

Belagan has served the government for a period of 37

years, during which, he made a steady ascent from an
Elementary Grade School Teacher to Schools Division
Superintendent. In devoting the best years of his life to
the education department, he received numerous
awards. This is the first time he is being administratively
charged. He is in the edge of retirement. In fact, he had
filed his application for retirement when Magdalena filed
her complaint.

Rule XIV, of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive

Order No. 292:
o SEC. 16. In the determination of penalties to
be imposed, mitigating and aggravating
circumstances may be considered. x x x.

The mitigating circumstances are enumerated in Section

53, Rule IV, of the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service
o SEC. 53. Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating,
or
Alternative
Circumstances. In
the
determination of the penalties to be imposed,
mitigating,
aggravating
and
alternative
circumstances attendant to the commission of
the offense shall be considered.
o The
following
circumstances
shall
be

appreciated:
o xxxxxx
o j. length of service
o xxxxxx
o l. and other analogous cases.
Conformably with our ruling in a similar case of sexual
harassment, and Belagans length of service,
unblemished record in the past and numerous
awards, the penalty of suspension from office without pay
for one (1) year is in order.
While we will not condone the wrongdoing of public
officers and employees, however, neither will we negate
any move to recognize and remunerate their lengthy
service in the government.

Villanueva v. Quisumbing, CA | Joan

July 20, 2006
ROBERTO M. VILLANUEVA, PETITIONER, VS.
QUISUMBING, COURT OF APPEALS AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY ROBERTO P.
NAZARENO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY GENERAL,
RESPONDENTS.
TINGA, J.
SUMMARY: Villanueva, a married man, was caught sleeping (as
in tulog) naked with a woman in the office of House
Representative Navarro. The woman turned out to be Rep.
Navarros daughter, a married woman. He was thus charged with
Grave Misconduct, Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the Service before the House Disciplinary
Board. The Board found him guilty and meted the penalty of
dismissal. The House affirmed. CSC, however held that Villanueva
is guilty only of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct, and modified
the penalty to 1-year suspension. On a Rule 65 petition to CA, CA
reversed and sided with the House, citing the Dicdican case where
a court personnel was dismissed when he was found guilty of the
same offense as that committed by Villanueva. SC ruled in favor of
Villanueva and held that: 1) the House should have filed an appeal
first as this was the adequate, speedy remedy; 2) Villanueva is not
guilty of Grave Misconduct; 3) But Villanueva is guilty of
Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct; and 4) the Dicdican case is not
controlling in this case.
DOCTRINES:

Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate

violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior,
especially by a government official. To constitute an
administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be
connected with the performance of the official functions
and duties of a public officer.

In grave misconduct as distinguished from simple

misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule,
must be manifest.
FACTS:

Nov 1997: Villanueva, married man and the Legislative

Assistant II of the Cashiering and Administrative Records
Division of the House of Representatives (the House),
was charged with Grave Misconduct, Disgraceful and
Immoral Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
the Service before the House Disciplinary Board.

The charges were based on an entry in the Official Log

Book as well as a Spot Inspection Report accomplished,
respectively, by two security officers (Maramba and
Castillo) of the House who were on regular roving patrol
duty on the night of 16 Oct 1997. Their routine inspection
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 11

tour included Room 305, Northwing Building, Office of

o Villanueva's offense relates to his official
Representative Constantino H. Navarro, Jr., of the First
functions as it was made possible precisely by
District of Surigao Del Norte.
his official functions. By virtue of his position,
Maramba and Castillo narrated that when they came
Villanueva had free rein inside the building even
after office hours. Clearly, therefore, Villanueva
upon said office at around 9:30 of that night, they saw
used his office to commit the misconduct for
Villanueva, a married man and a female asleep on the
which he was charged.
couch, both naked, with the woman's arm resting on
o CA desires to improve the public regard of the
Villanueva's body. (*GAAASP* Kapitan Janolino ikaw
ba yan??? Heneralllll!) The female was later identified as
government sector by safeguarding morality in
Elizabeth Navarro-Arguelles , Representative Navarro's
the ranks.
daughter and confidential assistant, herself a married

MR denied. Thus, the petition.

woman. (OMG more telenovela conflict please)

Villanueva contends that:

Villanueva's immediate supervisor, Jose Ma. Antonio
o CA did not have jurisdiction over the House's
Tuano, Chief of the Cashiering and Administrative
R65 Petition as it was a substitute for lost
Records Division, lodged the complaint against
appeal.
Villanueva, Incidentally, no charges were filed against
o CSC acted well within the confines of its
Navarro-Arguelles as the House Disciplinary Board has
jurisdiction when it imposed the penalty
no jurisdiction over confidential assistants of
prescribed by law for disgraceful and immoral
Representatives.
conduct.
The House Disciplinary Board, after hearing, found
o The Dicdican adjudication finds no application
Villanueva guilty as charged and suspended him for one
as it was arrived at in the Court's exercise of its
(1) year without pay with a stern warning that any
administrative jurisdiction over its personnel.
infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
o His misconduct is in no way connected with his
ON MR however, the Board increased the penalty to
official functions and it cannot thus be equated
dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits.
with grave misconduct as defined by law.
Speaker Manuel B. Villar, Jr. affirmed the latter Decision

In its Comment, the House contends that an appeal from

of the House Disciplinary Board in a Resolution
the decision of CSC would not constitute a speedy and
(Oct2000). MR denied by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte,
adequate remedy thus necessitating the R65 Petition.
Jr. (May2001)
The decision of CSC was immediately executory and its
2002: Villanueva then interposed an appeal before
execution would not have been stayed by an ordinary
CSC which held that Villanueva is guilty of
appeal. Also, CAs ruling is in accordance with law and
Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct. It modified the
jurisprudence, particularly the Dicdican case. Employees
penalty to suspension (1 year). In all other respects,
of the legislature, just like employees of the judiciary,
the decisions appealed from were affirmed.
should be subject to the same exacting standards of
CSC further held:
morality and decency in their professional and private
o Considering that Villanueva has been out of the
conduct. Lastly, since Villanueva was found guilty of
Grave Misconduct, Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct and
service for more than the imposed suspension,
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service,
he should now be reinstated to his former
dismissal indeed is the appropriate penalty.
position. It is understood that this reinstatement
shall not carry with it the payment of back

In his Reply, Villanueva maintains that even if an appeal

salaries and other entitlements, for he is not
before CA does not stop the execution of the CSC's
totally exonerated.
Decision, the House could have applied for a restraining
On MR, the House prayed for the re-imposition of the
order or injunction to stay it, noting that Section 82, Rule
VI of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
penalty of dismissal. For his part, Villanueva moved for
Civil Service provides, thus:
partial reconsideration, seeking that he be awarded his
o Section 82. Effect of Pendency of Petition for
benefits (Jan1999 to Feb2001).
CSC denied both motions.
Review/Certiorari with the Court.-The filing
and pendency of a petition for review with the
Petition for certiorari was filed with CA. The House
Court of Appeals or certiorari with the Supreme
ascribed grave abuse of discretion to CSC for reducing
Court shall not stop the execution of the final
the penalty to a mere suspension.
decision of the Commission unless the Court
CA granted the petition and sustained Villanuevas
issues a restraining order or an injunction.
dismissal. CA held that:

Moreover,
Villanueva points out that the House could
o There is similarity of the factual circumstances
have
easily
availed of the remedy of appeal under R43 of
with Dicdican v. Fernan, Jr. where the court
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The House received a
personnel was found guilty of disgraceful and
copy of the assailed CSC resolution on 21 November
immoral conduct and dismissed. Adherence to
2002. According to the Rules, the House had fifteen (15)
case law dictates the imposition of a similar
days, or until 6 Dec 2002, to perfect an appeal which
penalty for the similar offense in the case at bar.
apparently, it did not do. Instead, it filed a petition for
Otherwise, the Court would be imposing on
certiorari under Rule 65 to make up for the lost remedy of
judicial employees more stringent standards
appeal.
than employees of the Legislature or the
Executive.
o CSC gravely erred in failing to recognize the ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the House should have first availed of
gravity of Villanueva's misconduct, stressing that
the remedy of appeal (YES)
Villanueva not only disregarded his marriage
2.
Whether or not the offense must be classified as Grave
vows but also exhibited total disrespect of the
Misconduct (NO)
marital status of Elizabeth Navarro-Arguelles.
3. Whether or not Villanueva is guilty of Disgraceful and
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 12

4.

Immoral Conduct (YAS)

Whether or not Dicdican is a controlling precedent (NO)

RATIO:
1. APPEAL FIRST
CA erred in giving due course to the House's petition for
certiorari as it was filed in lieu of an appeal which is the
prescribed remedy. Section 5, Rule 43 states that final
orders or resolutions of CSC are appealable to CA
through a petition for review. However, instead of availing
of the remedy of appeal, the House resorted to the wrong
remedy of certiorari.
The House received the assailed CSC resolution on 21
November 2002. It had until 6 December 2002 or fifteen
(15) days after, to file an appeal. Despite the sufficient
time, the House allowed the period to elapse and instead
filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on 20 January
2003, close to two (2) months after its receipt of the
resolution. The House intended to make up for the lost
remedy of appeal and substituted it with a Rule 65
petition.
A special civil action of certiorari is not a substitute for a
lost or lapsed remedy of appeal.6
That appeals to CA do not stop the execution of
decisions of CSC is not sufficient justification for resorting
to the remedy of certiorari. The execution of the CSC
decision may be stayed if the House applies for and the
appellate court so issues a restraining order or an
injunction. THUS, under the circumstances, an appeal
from the decision of the Commission was an adequate
and speedy remedy foreclosing the need for a Rule 65
petition.
As the House failed to file a timely appeal, CA should
have denied outright its petition for certiorari.

constitute an administrative offense, misconduct

should relate to or be connected with the
performance of the official functions and duties of a
public officer.
In grave misconduct as distinguished from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law or flagrant disregard of established
rule, must be manifest. Corruption as an element of
grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or
fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his
station or character to procure some benefit for himself or
for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of
others.
CASE AT BAR: Villanueva's offense was in no way
connected with the performance of his functions and
duties as a public officer. Sure, his office was used as a
venue for the commission of the offense and definitely,
his offense speaks despicably of his character as a man
but it in no way evinced any failure on his part to
discharge his duties as a public officer. Yes,
Villanueva's offense is gravely immoral and reprehensible
but it falls short of grave misconduct as defined by law.
To determine whether a public officer committed
misconduct, it is necessary to separate the character
of the man from the character of the officer. Here,
Villanueva's transgression laid bare the values of his
inner being but did not expose any of his shortcoming as
a public officer. Who Villanueva is and what he believes
in are inconsequential in concluding whether his
misdemeanor amounts to misconduct. Rather, what is
material is whether Villanueva properly discharged his
public functions which we believe in no way was
compromised or affected by the commission of his
offense.

3. DISGRACEFUL AND IMMORAL CONDUCT

2) NOT GRAVE MISCONDUCT
Villanueva is guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct
Even if such petition was not procedurally flawed, still
for having engaged in an illicit affair.
and all, it was bereft of merit and CA erred in granting it.
Government employees engaged in illicit relations are
CA erred when it concurred with the House's contention
guilty of "disgraceful and immoral conduct" for which
that Villanueva's offense should be classified as grave
he/she may be held administratively liable.
misconduct.
According to Section 22 (o), Rule XVI of the Omnibus
Amosco v. Magro defines misconduct in this wise:
Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of
o Misconduct in office has a definite and well
1987 and Section 52 A (15) of the Uniform Rules on
understood legal meaning. By uniform legal
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service:
definition, it is a misconduct such as affects
o The first offense of Disgraceful and Immoral
his performance of his duties as an officer
Conduct is punishable by suspension of six
and not such only as affects his character as
(6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year.
a private individual.... It is settled that
o A second offense is punishable by dismissal.
misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance
CASE AT BAR: As Villanueva is a first-time offender, the
warranting removal from office of an officer,
proper penalty is suspension. CSC therefore correctly
must have direct relation to and be connected
meted out said penalty. It clearly acted in accordance
with the performance of official duties amounting
with law and no grave abuse of discretion can be
either to maladministration or willful, intentional
ascribed to it contrary to CAs finding.
neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the
office.
Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or 4. DICDICAN NOT CONTROLLING
Moreover, we do not agree with CA ruling
deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of
that Dicdican should be the controlling precedent such
behavior, especially by a government official. To
that the penalty of dismissal should be imposed.
As correctly pointed out by Villanueva, when SC acts on
6 David v. Cordova: Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for
complaints against judges or any of the personnel under
certiorari will not be entertained. The remedies of appeal (including petitions for
its supervision and control, it acts as personnel
review) and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Hence,
certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one's own
administrator imposing discipline and not as a court
negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. One of
judging justiciable controversies.
the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy
In Dicdican, the Court sanctioned its errant personnel
and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even
if the ground therefor[e] is grave abuse of discretion.
according to what it believed to be the commensurate
punishment. We deemed it wise to impose more stringent
standards primarily to show that we are serious in
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 13

policing
our ranks. We imposed punishment
in Dicdican as we deemed it proper, according to our
own policies, but not without the guidance of the
rules in the civil service.
In this case, however, we are not acting as a personnel
administrator but rather as the adjudicative appellate
tribunal of last resort reviewing the decisions of lower
courts. It is our responsibility to confirm whether the lower
courts upheld the law. The law in this case clearly states
that the proper penalty is suspension and not dismissal
as held by the appellate court, hence, suspension it must
be.

DISPOSITION: Petition GRANTED. CA Decision and Resolution

SET ASIDE. CSC Resolution AFFIRMED and REINSTATED.

Bacsin v. Wahiman | Gab

April 30, 2008
Dioscoro F. Bacsin, Petitioner, v. Eduardo O. Wahiman,
Respondent
Velasco, Jr., J.
NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari
SUMMARY: Dioscoro Bacsin was a public school teacher, while
Eduardo Wahiman was father of AAA, one of Bacsins elementary
school students. AAA claimed that Bacsin fondled her breast,
which led to the charging of Bacsin with Misconduct in a Formal
Charge by Regional Director Vivencio Muego, Jr. of the CSC. The
CSC found Bacsin guilty of Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual
Harassment) and dismissed him, which the CA affirmed. Upon
reaching the SC, the SC affirmed the CAs Decision, stating that
Bacsin was guilty of Grave Misconduct.
DOCTRINES:

The
term
misconduct
denotes
intentional
wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or
standard of behavior.

In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption,

clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of
established rule must be manifest.

(Acts of Sexual Harassment) and dismissed him from

the service.
o The CSC found Bacsin to have committed an
act constituting sexual harassment as
defined in Sec. 3 of RA 7877 (Anti-Sexual
Harassment Act of 1995).
The CSC then denied Bacsins subsequent MR.
Bacsin then brought the matter up to the CA, which
affirmed the CSCs Resolutions.
o Bacsin had the opportunity to be heard, so there
was no violation of his right to due process.
o Even if Bacsin was formally charged with
disgraceful and immoral conduct and
misconduct, the CSC found that the allegations
and evidence sufficiently proved Bacsins guilt of
grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal from
the service.
Bacsin then filed the present petition for review on
certiorari with the SC.

ISSUE #1: W/N Bacsin could be guilty of acts of sexual

harassment, grave misconduct, which was different from or an
offense not alleged in the formal charge filed against him at the
inception of the administrative case (YES)

RATIO #1:

Bacsin: The CSC cannot validly adjudge him guilty of an

offense, such as Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual
Harassment), different from that specified in the formal
charge, which was Misconduct.

Dadubo v. CSC: The charge against the respondent in an

administrative case need not be drafted with the
precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is
sufficient that he is apprised of the substance of the
charge against him; what is controlling is the allegation of
the acts complained of, not the designation of the
offense.

Bacsin was sufficiently informed of the basis of the

charge against him, which was his act of improperly
touching one of his students.
FACTS:

The failure to designate the offense specifically and with

Dioscoro Bacsin is a public school teacher of Pandan

precision is of no moment in this administrative case.
Elementary School, Pandan, Mambajao, Camiguin

The formal charge, while not specifically mentioning RA

Province.
7877, imputes on Bacsin acts covered and penalized by

Eduardo Wahiman is the father of AAA, one of

said law.
Bacsins elementary school students.

The demand of a sexual favor need not be explicit or

AAA claimed that on August 16, 1995, Bacsin asked

stated.
her to be at his office to do an errand.
o Domingo v. Rayala: this provision calls for a
o Once inside, she saw him get a folder and place
demand, request or requirement of a sexual
it on his table.
favor. But it is not necessary that the demand,
o After making her come closer, he held her hand
request, or requirement of a sexual favor be
and then touched and fondled her breast.
articulated in a categorical oral or written
o AAA stated that he fondled her breast 5 times
statement. It may be discernedfrom the acts
and that she felt afraid.
of the offender.

Vincent Sorrabas, one of AAAs classmates, claiming to

The CSC and CA found that even without an explicit

have witnessed the incident, testified that the fondling
demand from Bacsin, his act of mashing AAAs breast
incident did happen just as AAA related it.
was sufficient to constitute sexual harassment.

Bacsin was then charged with Misconduct in a Formal

Moreover, under RA 7877, Sec. 3(b)(4), sexual

Charge by Regional Director Vivencio Muego, Jr. of
harassment in an education or training environment is
the CSC.
committed (w)hen the sexual advances result in an

Bacsins defense:
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the
o The touching incident happened by accident just
student, trainee or apprentice.
as he was handing AAA a lesson book.
o AAA even testified that she felt fear when
o The incident happened in about 2 or 3 seconds
Bacsin touched her.
and that AAA left his office without any

It cannot then be said that the CSC lacked basis for its
complaint.
ruling when it had both the facts and the law.

The CSC found Bacsin guilty of Grave Misconduct

o The CSC found the evidence presented by the
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 14

complainant sufficient to support a finding of

grave misconduct.
Factual findings of administrative agencies, when
supported by substantial evidence, are binding upon the
SC.

had a chance to refute it, but failed.

DISPOSITION: The petition is dismissed and the CAs Decision
was affirmed.

Narvasa vs. Sanchez | Erika

March 26, 2010
TERESITA
G.
NARVASA, petitioner, vs.
BENJAMIN A. SANCHEZ, JR., respondent.
RATIO #2:
Per Curiam

There is misconduct on Bacsins part.

The
term
misconduct
denotes
intentional SUMMARY: 3 separate cases for sexual harassment were filed
wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or against municipal assessor Sanchez. Narvasa in particular
charged him of having attempted to kiss her without her consent.
standard of behavior.
Municipal committee found him guilty of grave sexual harrassment

In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption,

and was dismissed. CSC found him guilty of grave misconduct but
clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of
still imposed dismissal as penalty. CA, however, found him guilty
established rule must be manifest.
only of simple misconduct and lowered the penalty to suspension

Bacsins act of fondling one of his students is against for 1 month and 1 day. Narvasa, the complainant in the particular
a law, RA 7877, and is doubtless inexcusable.
case where Sanchez was dismissed initially, appeals. SC ruled

Bacsins act cannot be construed as a case of simple that Sanchez is guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed him
misconduct.
from service. His acts, intentional and offensive, violated the law

Sexually molesting a child is, by any norm, a revolting (RA 7877) and the customary rule that intimate physical contact
act that it cannot but be categorized as a grave must be consensual. SC also took the length of his service as
offense.
aggravating.

Parents entrust the care and molding of their children to DOCTRINE/HELD: Length of service as a factor in determining
teachers, and expect them to be their guardians while in the imposable penalty in administrative cases is a double-edged
sword. In fact, Sanchezs long years of government service should
school, but Bacsin violated that trust.

The charge of grave misconduct proven against be seen as a factor which aggravated the wrong that he
Bacsin demonstrates his unfitness to remain as a committed. Having been in the government service for so long, he,
teacher and continue to discharge the functions of more than anyone else, should have known that public service is a
public trust; that public service requires utmost integrity and
his office.
strictest discipline, and, as such, a public servant must exhibit at
ISSUE #3: Assuming Bacsin was guilty of disgraceful and immoral all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity.
conduct and misconduct as charged by complainant, W/N the NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari
penalty of dismissal from the service is in accord with the Omnibus FACTS:

The parties to this case are employees of the Municipality

Civil Service Rules, Rule XIV, Sec. (23) and applicable rulings
of Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya. petitioner Teresita G. Narvasa is
(YES)
a senior bookkeeper while respondent Benjamin A.
Sanchez, Jr. is the municipal assessor.
RATIO #3:

Narvasa separately filed 3 cases of sexual harassment

Bacsins argument need not be discussed further as he

against Sanchez along with Mary Gay P. de la Cruz and
was rightly found guilty of grave misconduct.
Zenaida M. Gayaton, who are also employees of Mun. of

Under CSC Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, Rule

Diadi.
IV, Sec. 52, Grave Misconduct carries with it the penalty
o Dela Cruzs affidavit-complaint: sometime in Feb
of dismissal for the first offense.
2000, Sanchez handed her a note saying, "Gay,

Thus, the penalty imposed on Bacsin is in accordance

I like you." Offended by Sanchezs inappropriate
with the Rules.
remark, de la Cruz admonished him and told
him that she would give the note to his wife.
ISSUE #4: W/N the charge of Misconduct, a lesser offense,
Sanchez then grabbed the note from her and
includes the offense of Grave Misconduct, a greater offense (?)
tore it into pieces. However, this first incident
(Gab: Not really discussed after mentioning Bacsins argument)
was followed by a message sent to De la Cruz
sometime in March 2002 in which he said, "Ka
RATIO #4:
date ko si Mary Gay ang tamis ng halik mo."

Bacsin: The offense of Misconduct does not include the

o Gayaton: on Apr 5, 2002, Sanchez whispered to
graver offense of Grave Misconduct.
her
during
a
retirement
program,
"Oy
flawless,
pumanaw
ka
met
ditan"
("Hey,
ISSUE #5: W/N Bacsin was denied due process (NO)
flawless, get away from there.") while twice
pinching her upper left arm near the shoulder in
RATIO #5:
a slow manner. A few days later, Gayaton

Bacsin was not denied due process of law, contrary to his

received a text message while she was passing
claims.
Sanchezs car in front of the municipal hall:

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to

"Pauwi ka na ba sexy?" Gayaton later verified
be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an
through Sanchezs clerk, Alona Agas, that the
opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to
sender of the message was Sanchez.
seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling

On or about Apr 22 to 25, 2002,

complained of.
Gayaton received several messages
o These elements are present in this case, where
from Sanchez stating: (1) "I like you";
Bacsin was properly informed of the charge and
(2) "Have a date with me"; (3) "Dont
ISSUE #2 (MAIN): W/N Bacsin was guilty of Grave
Misconduct, as distinguished from Simple Misconduct (YES)

PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 15

tell to (sic) others that I told that I like

established rule attended the incident in question.
you because nakakahiya"; (4) "Puso

RA 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, took

mo to pag bigay moto sakin, I would be
effect on Mar 5, 1995. Sanchez was charged with
very happy" and (5) "I slept and dreamt
knowledge of the existence of this law and its contents,
nice things about you."
more so because he was a public servant. His act of
o Narvasa: on Nov 18, 2000, during a field trip of
grabbing Narvasa and attempting to kiss her without her
officers and members of the St. Joseph Multiconsent was an unmistakable manifestation of his
Purpose Cooperative to the Grotto Vista Resort
intention to violate laws that specifically prohibited
in Bulacan, Sanchez pulled her towards him and
sexual harassment in the work environment.
attempted to kiss her. Narvasa resisted and was

Assuming arguendo that Sanchez never intended to

able to escape the clutches of Sanchez to rejoin
violate RA 7877, his attempt to kiss Narvasa was a
the group that they were travelling with.
flagrant disregard of a customary rule that had existed
Sanchez apologized to Narvasa thrice regarding
since time immemorial that intimate physical contact
that incident.
between individuals must be consensual. Sanchezs

Based on the investigation conducted by Mun. of Diadis

defiance of custom and lack of respect for the opposite
Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI),
sex were more appalling because he was a married man.
Sanchez was found guilty of all 3 charges by Municipal
Sanchezs act showed a low regard for women and
Mayor Marvic S. Padilla.
disrespect for Narvasas honor and dignity.
o Against De la Cruz and Gayaton: reprimand for
his 1st offense of light harassment and 30 days Re: apologies
suspension for his 1st offense of less grave

CA: Sanchezs repeated apologies to Narvasa are

sexual harassment
indications of the absence of intention on his part to
o Against Narvasa: however, was deemed to be
commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
grave sexual harassment for which he was

SC: No. On the contrary, such persistent attempts to

dismissed from the government service.
make peace with Narvasa indicated how well Sanchez

CSC: on appeal, passed only on the decision in the case

was aware of the gravity of the transgression he had
filed by Narvasa since, under the CSC rules, the penalty
committed. Sanchez certainly knew of the heavy penalty
of reprimand and/or suspension of not more than 30 days
that awaited him if Narvasa complained
cannot be appealed
o dismissed the appeal but modified Mayor LENGTH OF SERVICE: AGGRAVATING
Padillas order by holding Sanchez guilty of

Sec 53 of Rule 4 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative

grave misconduct instead of grave sexual
Cases provides a list of the circumstances which may be
harassment; still dismissed
considered in the determination of penalties to be

CA: found Sanchez guilty only of simple misconduct;

imposed.7
penalty lowered to suspension for 1 month and 1 day

CA: Sanchezs more than 10 years of government

Narvasa appeals
service and claim of being awarded Most Outstanding
Municipal Assessor of Region II for 3 years: mitigating
ISSUE: W/N the acts committed by Sanchez against Narvasa
circumstances.
constitute simple misconduct or grave misconduct (Grave)
RATIO:

SC: Nope.

Misconduct: intentional wrongdoing or deliberate

Length of service as a factor in determining the

violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior.
imposable penalty in administrative cases is a

To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct

double-edged sword. In fact, Sanchezs long years of
government service should be seen as a factor which
should relate to or be connected with the performance of
aggravated the wrong that he committed. Having been in
the official functions and duties of a public officer.
the government service for so long, he, more than

In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple

anyone else, should have known that public service is a
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
public trust; that public service requires utmost integrity
violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established
and strictest discipline, and, as such, a public servant
rule must be manifest.
must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and
CASE AT BAR: intentional, offensive

Sanchezs acts of grabbing Narvasa and attempting to

kiss her were, no doubt, intentional. Worse, the incident
7Section 53. Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating, or Alternative
occurred months after he had made similar but subtler
Circumstances. In the determination of the penalties imposed,
overtures to De la Cruz, who made it clear that his sexual
mitigating, aggravating and alternative circumstances attendant to the
advances were not welcome. Considering that the acts
commission of the offense shall be considered.The following
Sanchez committed against Narvasa were much more
circumstances shall be appreciated:
aggressive, it was impossible that the offensive nature
of his actions could have escaped him. It does not
xxx
appear that Narvasa and Sanchez were carrying on an
amorous relationship that might have justified his attempt
to kiss Narvasa while they were separated from their
g. Habituality
companions. Worse, as Narvasa and Sanchez were both
married (to other persons), Sanchez not only took his
xxx
marital status lightly, he also ignored Narvasas
married state, and good character and reputation.
j. Length of service in the government

Violation of law and/or custom

SC disagreees with the CA that neither corruption, clear

intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 16

integrity.
Sadly, Sanchezs actions did not reflect the integrity and
discipline that were expected of public servants. He failed
to live up to the image of the outstanding and exemplary
public official that he was. He sullied government service
instead.

Furthermore, we note that this is the 3rd time that

Sanchez is being penalized for acts of sexual
harassment. We are also alarmed by the increasing
boldness in the way Sanchez displayed his unwelcome
affection for the women of his fancy. He is a perverted
predator preying on his female colleagues and
subordinates. Sanchezs continued misbehavior cannot,
therefore, be allowed to go unchecked.
DISPOSITION: CSC ruling reinstated. Grave misconduct.
Dismissed with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued
leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch or instrumentality of the government, including GOCCs.
This is without prejudice to any criminal complaints that may be
filed against him. No costs.

GSIS v. Mayordomo | Des

May 31, 2011
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and
WINSTON F. GARCIA, in his capacity as President and
General Manager of the GSIS, Petitioner, vs. ARWIN T.
MAYORDOMO,, Respondent
Mendoza, J
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari under R45
SUMMARY: Mayordomo was employed as Accounts Management
Specialist of the GSIS FMAD. He was found to use IP addresses
other than his own at many instances which lead to disturbances
in the workplace. He was then issued a formal administrative
charge for Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service. The SC found him guilty only for
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and not for
Grave misconduct since his acts were not related to or connected
with the his official functions.
DOCTRINE:

A long line of cases has defined misconduct as a

transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligence by the public officer. Jurisprudence has
likewise firmly established that the misconduct is grave if
it involves any of the additional elements of corruption,
willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established
rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence.

Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in

the act of an official or employee who unlawfully or
wrongfully uses her station or character to procure some
benefit for herself or for another, at the expense of the
rights of others.
Nonetheless, a person charged with grave misconduct
may be held liable for simple misconduct if the
misconduct does not involve any of the additional
elements to qualify the misconduct as grave
To constitute misconduct, the act or acts must have a
direct relation to and be connected with the performance
of official duties.
To constitute the administrative offense of Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, it need not
be related to or connected with the public officers official
functions. See ratio for examples.
FACTS:

Respondent Arwin T. Mayordomo was employed as

Accounts Management Specialist of the GSIS Fund

Management
Accounting
Department
(FMAD),
responsible for the preparation of financial statements,
from October 2, 2000 until his dismissal on August 31,
2007.
Sometime in September 2004, Ignacio L. Liscano then
GSIS Information Technology Officer (ITO) III called the
attention of Joseph Sta. Romana, another ITO, about a
network conflict in his personal computer. Sta. Romana
conducted a network scan to identify the source of the
problem. During the scan, he discovered that another
personal computer within the GSIS computer network
was also using the internet protocol (IP) address of
Liscanos computer. This other computer was eventually
identified as the one assigned to Mayordomo with
username ATMAYORDOMO.
Sta. Romana immediately restored the correct IP address
assigned to Mayordomos personal computer. Until this
restoration, Liscano was deprived of access to the GSIS
computer network and prevented from performing his
work as ITO. Mayordomo was verbally reminded that he
had no authority to change his IP address and warned
that doing so would result in network problems.
On February 9, 2005, in the course of another network
scan, Sta. Romana again encountered the username
ATMAYORDOMO. This time, an IP address, belonging to
the range of the GSIS Remote Access Server (RAS), was
simulated and used. Knowing that the RAS would provide
an exclusive external trafficking route to the GSIS
computer system and realizing that Mayordomo could
have gained access to the entire GSIS network including
its restricted resources, Sta. Romana lost no time in
reporting the matter to Rolando O. Tiu, Vice-President of
the Resources Administration Office.
Before the IT network personnel could take any action,
however, Mayordomo restored his assigned IP address.
The next day, the username ATMAYORDOMO appeared
again in the scan, this time using two (2) IP addresses of
the RAS (143.44.6.1 and 143.44.6.2). With notice to Tiu,
Mayordomos personal computer was pulled out to have
the glitches caused by the unauthorized use of the said
IP addresses fixed.
According to GSIS, [t]he unauthorized changing of IP
address gave freedom to respondent to exploit the GSIS
network system and gain access to other restricted
network resources, including the internet. It also resulted
to IP address network conflict which caused unnecessary
work to and pressure on ITSG personnel who had to fix
the same. Further, as a consequence, Mayordomos
simulation of the RAS IP addresses caused disruption
within the GSIS mainframe on-line system affecting both
the main and branch offices of the GSIS. His actions
likewise prevented authorized outside users from
accessing the GSIS network through the RAS IP
addresses he simulated.
Tiu reported Mayordomos acts to Esperanza R.
Fallorina and Maria Corazon G. Magdurulan, with
emphasis on the danger of changing IP addresses as a
channel for virus proliferation that could result to loss of
critical files for all those infected and render said users
unproductive.
In his written explanation of the same date, Mayordomo
admitted the acts imputed to him and offered no
excuse therefor. He nonetheless explained his side
and claimed that the IP address assigned to him could
not access the network due to a conflict with another IP
address. Despite several verbal notices to the
Information Technology Services Group (ITSG), he was
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 17

simply told that the conflict would eventually disappear.

The network conflict, however, persisted and resulted in
the disruption of his work constraining him to use another
IP address to use an officemates laser printer which was
only accessible thru the Local Area Network (LAN).

On February 21, 2005, Human Resource Office VicePresident J. Fernando U. Campana issued a
memorandum strictly enjoining Mayordomo not to repeat
such actuations, and to follow standard office procedures
or exercise prudent judgment and obtain the necessary
clearance before engaging in any extraordinary measure.
o In the same memorandum, it was noted that
Mayordomo did not heed the earlier warning by
the ITSG on the effects brought about by the
changing of his IP address to the entire network
system.
o Further, despite absence of intent to harm the
system, his act of changing his IP address to
facilitate the printing of rush accounting reports
was unsanctioned/illegal because he lacked the
authority to access the network.
o Thereafter, Mayordomos personal computer
was returned to him.

On May 3, 2006, or more than a year later, Mayordomo

received a Show-Cause Memorandum from the
Investigation Department in connection with his previous
acts of changing his IP address.
In June 2006, President and General Manager Garcia
issued a formal administrative charge against
Mayordomo, for Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
Mayordomos Answer:
o He admitted that he changed his IP address but
he denied having violated any policy or
guideline on the subject because no policy,
regulation or rule pertaining to changing of IP
address existed at the time of its commission.
o It was only on November 10, 2005 when the
GSIS adopted a policy against unauthorized
changing of IP addresses.
o Hence, he could not be held liable in view of the
constitutional prohibition against ex post facto
laws.
GSIS: found Mayordomo guilty of grave misconduct and
imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal, with
forfeiture of benefits, loss of eligibility and disqualification
from government service
Mayordomo moved for MR arguing against the
unfairness and severity of his dismissal.
o He argued that his act of changing his IP
address was in no way a flagrant disregard of
an established rule, not only because no policy
penalizing the act existed at that time he
committed it, but because his reason for doing
so even redounded to the benefit of the GSIS.
o Simply put, absent were the elements of
corruption and the clear intent to violate a law
on his part and only the motivation to
accomplish his task reigned upon his judgment.
GSIS denied MR
Mayordomo filed an appeal with CSC dismissed appeal
He then elevated case to CA. Mayordomo argued that
the CSC Resolutions were issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
He reiterated his arguments before the GSIS and the
CSC:
o that he did not commit so grave an offense to

warrant his dismissal from service;

that the GSIS miserably failed to present
evidence showing illwill or bad faith on his part;
o that his act of changing his IP address was not
punishable because no existing company policy
was in effect at that time and, in fact, it was only
nine months after his act was complained of,
when the GSIS issued a policy/guideline on the
matter;
o that the Memorandum issued earlier by the
Vice-President of the Human Resource Office
sufficiently served as his penalty for his careless
acts;
o and that granting that he should be penalized
anew, his length of service and work
performance should be considered for him to
merit a lighter penalty than that of dismissal.
CA partly granted the petition.
o While Mayordomo failed to exercise prudence in
resorting to changing his IP address, it could not
be said that this act was characterized by a
wrongful use of station or character to procure
personal benefit contrary to duty and rights of
others.
o GSIS failed to prove that Mayordomo acted out
of a sinister motive in resorting to such acts or in
order to gain a personal benefit therefrom.
On reconsideration, the CA rejected Mayordomos
prayer for payment of backwages corresponding to the
period of his preventive suspension
o CA emphasized that Mayordomo was not
completely exonerated from liability for the act
complained of. The offense was merely
downgraded from grave misconduct to
simple misconduct. Therefore, Mayordomos
dismissal is deemed a preventive suspension
pending his appeal
Hence, instant recourse
o

ISSUE # 1: W/N the CA committed error in downgrading the

offense to simple misconduct as it failed to consider the fact
that respondent Mayordomo altered his assigned IP address
not only once but four (4) times, despite warning. (YES; SC
ruled that his acts are not misconducts but he is found
guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service)
RATIO # 1:
GSIS:
o It contended that Mayordomo, from the outset,
had full knowledge of the nature, purpose, and
importance of an IP address and the dire
consequences of changing the same. In
committing computer identity and capacity theft,
Mayordomo is guilty of Grave Misconduct, and
even Dishonesty, as shown by substantial
evidence.
o Hence, the CA erred in giving credence to his
assertion that his act of changing his IP address
was not attended by corruption and sinister
motive, considering that he freely chose to
traverse a tortuous path of changing his IP
address, to simply print a document for his
alleged rush work.
o For GSIS, Mayordomos dubious motive is
shown by his desire to get to the top, with all the
privileges, advantages and practically limitless
vista of taking that topmost perch.
Mayordomo:
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 18

He reasons out that during the time when the

GSIS FMAD was in the peak of activities, he
was constrained to alter his IP address because
of the failure of the ITSG to fix a conflict which
effectively disrupted his work.
o He claims to have no reason to cause harm to
the system and to the GSIS in general, because
in the first place, he was not informed of the
hazards of changing IP addresses.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof
necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial
evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind may accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Well-entrenched is the rule that substantial
proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof
beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient as basis for the
imposition of any disciplinary action upon the employee.
In this case, the attending facts and the evidence
presented, point to no other conclusion than the
administrative liability of Mayordomo.
CA: as to intent
o Mayordomos act of having repeatedly changed
his IP address without authority, despite
previous warnings, shows that he did not
exercise prudence in dealing with officework and
his officemates.
o After the first warning he received from the
ITSG, Mayordomo should have realized that his
unauthorized act brought inconvenience, not
only to a fellow employee, Liscano, but to the
entire GSIS, which was actually deprived of
service from a paid employee.
o As if he did not understand the repercussions of
his act, he again toyed with his IP address and
deliberately ignored the importance of
necessary clearance before engaging in any
extraordinary measure. Worse, he chose the
RAS and gained access to the entire GSIS
network, putting the system in a vulnerable state
of security.
o When Mayordomo was alerted by the
hazardous effects of using an IP address other
than his, he should have realized that, a fortiori,
using a RAS IP address would expose the GSIS
system into a more perilous situation.
Indeed, prudence and good sense could have saved
Mayordomo from his current tribulation, but he was
unfortunately stubborn to imbibe advice of caution.
His claim that he was obliged to change his IP address
due to the inaction of the ITSG in resolving the problem
with his own IP address, cannot exonerate him from
responsibility.
The Court neither loses sight of the undisputed fact that
Vice-President J. Fernando U. Campanas Memorandum
stated that the ITSG discovered unauthorized and
unnecessary downloaded programs in Mayordomos
personal computer when it was pulled out. Hence,
despite his insistence that exigency was his sole reason
in altering his IP address, sheer common sense and
evidence to the contrary belie this.
CA: as to lack of official policy
o Mayordomo likewise fails to convince the Court
to adhere to his position that the lack of official
policy and guidelines at the time of commission
makes the act of unauthorized alteration of IP
addresses exempt from punishment.
o While official policy and guidelines apprise
covered employees of offenses carrying specific
o

penalties, the Court may not close its eyes from

the fact that actual notice of the dangers of
changing his IP address was made known to
Mayordomo, right after the first incident. The
CSC was correct in holding that subsequent to
the first warning, Mayordomo was fully aware
that changing his IP address without
acquiescence from the ITSG, was inherently
wrong.
o
In the same vein, proof of the alleged damage
caused by Mayordomos act to the GSIS system
and its use by the general public, is not
necessary. The inaccessibility, unnecessary
interruption, and downtime to the GSIS network
as may be experienced by outside users, is
obvious.
o Proof that the public was inconvenienced in
using the GSIS website is not necessary in
order to conclude that the unauthorized
changing of IP address can produce pernicious
effects to the orderly administration of
government services.
It is well-settled that in administrative cases, the injury
sought to be remedied is not merely the loss of
public money or property. Acts that go against the
established rules of conduct for government
personnel, [in this case, that of resorting to
unauthorized and radical solutions, without
clearance from appropriate parties] bring harm to the
civil service, whether they result in loss or not.
This rule is in line with the purpose of administrative
proceedings, which is mainly to protect the public service,
based on the time-honored principle that a public office is
a public trust.
A long line of cases has defined misconduct as a
transgression of some established and definite rule
of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or
gross negligence by the public officer. Jurisprudence
has likewise firmly established that the misconduct is
grave if it involves any of the additional elements of
corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to
disregard established rules, which must be proved
by substantial evidence.
To warrant dismissal from the service, the
misconduct must be grave, serious, important,
weighty, momentous, and not trifling.
The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and
not a mere error of judgment.
Corruption as an element of grave misconduct
consists in the act of an official or employee who
unlawfully or wrongfully uses her station or
character to procure some benefit for herself or for
another, at the expense of the rights of others.
Nonetheless, a person charged with grave
misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct
if the misconduct does not involve any of the
additional elements to qualify the misconduct as
grave. Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser
offense of simple misconduct
SC disagrees with CAs lowering of offense from
grave to simple misconduct.
o The Court indeed finds Mayordomo
administratively liable, but modifies the
designation of the offense and the penalty
imposed by the CA.
o The Court has come to a determination that the
administrative offense committed by the
respondent is not misconduct. To constitute
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 19

misconduct, the act or acts must have a

direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of official duties.
o The duties of Mayordomo as a member of the
GSIS FMAD surely do not involve the
modification of IP addresses. The act was
considered unauthorized, precisely because
dealing with the GSIS networks IP addresses is
strictly reserved for ITSG personnel who are
expectedly knowledgeable in this field.
o Accordingly, the
complained
acts
of
respondent Mayordomo constitute the
administrative
offense
of
Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service, which need not be related to or
connected with the public officers official
functions.

As long as the questioned conduct

tarnishes the image and integrity of
his/her public office, the corresponding
penalty may be meted on the erring
public officer or employee.
o Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is
no concrete description of what specific acts
constitute the grave offense of Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
o Jurisprudence, however, is instructive on
this point. The Court has considered the
following acts or omissions, inter alia, as
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
the Service: misappropriation of public funds,
abandonment of office, failure to report back to
work without prior notice, failure to safe keep
public records and property, making false
entries in public documents and falsification of
court orders.
o The Court also considered the following acts
as conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service, to wit: a Judges act of brandishing
a gun and threatening the complainants during a
traffic
altercation; a
court
interpreters
participation in the execution of a document
conveying complainants property which resulted
in a quarrel in the latters family
o Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service is classified as a grave offense under
Section 22(t) of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, with
a corresponding penalty of suspension for six
(6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for
the first offense, and the penalty of dismissal for
the second offense.
o As this is Mayordomos first case, he should be
meted the penalty of six (6) months and one (1)
day.
DISPOSITION: CA decision reversed.
Ganzon v Arlos| CM
October 22, 2013
ROLANDO
GANZON, Petitioner, vs.
FERNANDO
ARLOS, Respondent.
BERSAMIN, J.:
Summary: During the DILG Christmas Party, when Alrlos went to
the office to get some documents, Ganzon pointed a gun at him.
Arlos filed both an admin and crim case against Ganzon. The
criminal case was dismissed. The CSC found Ganzon guilty of
gross misconduct and ordered his dismissal. the CA and SC
affirmed, holding that Ganzons acts were surely a matter that

concerned his performance of duty, motivated his confronting the

latter and thus was liable for gross misconduct.
Doctrine:

The criteria that an act, to constitute a misconduct, must

not be committed in his private capacity and should bear
a direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of his official duties.

An act is intimately connected to the office of the offender

if it is committed as the consequence of the performance
of the office by him, or if it cannot exist without the office
even if public office is not an element of the crime in the
abstract.

A government employee who is found guilty of grave

misconduct may be dismissed from the service even
upon the first offense.
FACTS

The DILG Regional Office in Port San Pedro, Iloilo City

held its Christmas party on December 17, 1999 at the
office parking lot. When the Christmas party was about to
end at 7:30 in the evening, respondent Fernando Arlos
(Arlos), then the OIC Provincial Director of DILG, left to
get some documents from the Office of the Operations
Division located at the second floor of the building.

While Arlos was making his way to the stairs, Ganzon

suddenly approached and pulled out a short firearm of
unknown caliber from his waist and with no provocation
pointed the firearm at Arlos, angrily shouting in Ilongo:
"Nanding, for a moment, where is your boss? [referring to
Provincial Director Eliseo D. Orender] Why did he not call
for me? "

Arlos responded: "Sir Orendez is there in the program. I

am just getting something from upstairs.?"

Arlos parried Ganzons firearm-wielding hand and tried to

proceed towards the stairs, but Ganzon blocked his path,
pushed him back, and again pointed the firearm at Arlos
chest. Sensing that Ganzon would shoot him then, Arlos
quickly warded off Ganzons firearm-wielding hand. The
firearm exploded and the bullet hit the floor. Ganzon
again aimed the firearm at Arlos, prompting the latter to
run away as fast as he could.

Ganzon followed Arlos, and when they got to the gate of

the building, Ganzon once more pushed him back and
pointed the firearm at him, saying: Patay ka! Ganzon held
the firearm close to his waistline to conceal it from the
view of the other people present at the time.

At around 9:45 in the morning of December 21, 1999,

Arlos went to the DILG office to see the Regional Director
upon the latters instruction. Ganzon, who was then
standing near the entrance to the building, shouted upon
seeing Arlos enter the gate: What now?, obviously still
referring to the incident of December 17, 1999. Arlos
answered: I came here not to quarrel, but only to see the
Director.

The incidents of December 17, 1999 and December 21,

1999 impelled Arlos to administratively charge
Ganzon with grave misconduct.

Ganzon denied the charge and elected to undergo a

formal investigation.

During the formal investigation of the CSC Regional

Office, the parties agreed that they would just adopt the
evidence presented in the pending criminal prosecution
for attempted homicide (People v. Ganzon ) arising from
the same incident.

Arlos, DILG employee Nestor Sayno, DILG Provincial

Director Eliseo Orendez, and Fernando Totesora, Jr., the
security guard then assigned at the DILG Regional Office
attested to what happened.
PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 20

in the Civil Service , which governs the conduct of

Ganzon presented himself and Bobby Pepino, also an
disciplinary and non-disciplinary proceedings in
employee of the DILG Regional Office, and Voltaire
administrative cases, classifies grave misconduct as a
Guides. They described a different version of the
grave administrative offense.
incident, to wit:

Ganzons act of aiming his loaded firearm at Arlos

o ROLANDO GANZON testified that on December
constituted grave misconduct. Drawing and pointing the
17, 1999, about 7:30 in the evening, he was with
loaded firearm at Arlos evinced the intent on the part of
Bobby Pepino and Voltaire Guides waiting for
Ganzon to cause some harm upon Arlos on whom he
the drinks to be served to guests in their
vented his resentment of the poor performance rating he
Christmas Party. Fernando Arlos arrived and
received. Considering that Ganzon pointed his loaded
asked them what they were doing at the lobby.
firearm at Arlos not only once, but four times, Ganzons
He answered that they were waiting for the
menacing acts engendered in the mind of Arlos the welldrinks to be served.
founded belief that Arlos life could be in imminent
o Arlos said that they should be getting better
danger. That the firearm exploded when Arlos parried
performance ratings. He immediately responded
Ganzons firearm-wielding hand did not help dissipate the
that sometimes performance ratings are
belief.
disregarded or even changed. Arlos got angry,
and in order to avoid further discussion, Ganzon ACTS COMMITTED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY

Ganzon asserts that his acts did not constitute grave

stood up. At that time, guests were starting to
misconduct as his acts were not committed in relation to
arrive. Arlos pushed his body against Ganzon at
his performance of duty; that the Christmas party was not
the same time raising his right hand. Ganzon
an official function; that his offense could exist without the
held his hand; Arlos raised his left but again
office; and that the holding of the office was not a
Ganzon held it. They then pushed and shoved
constituent element of his offense.
each other to the gate.
o At the gate, Arlos immediately left. Ganzon went

SC: We disagree.
back to the administrative office to take his

In Largo v. Court of Appeals: the criteria that an act, to

dinner. After eating, he went to the quadrangle
constitute a misconduct, must not be committed in
to watch the program. At the quadrangle, he
his private capacity and should bear a direct relation
saw Provincial Director Orendez, Regional
to and be connected with the performance of his
Director Reyes, and Presidential Consultant
official duties.
Jonathan Sanico. He stayed there up to 2

Ganzons acts met the criteria in Largo v. Court of

oclock in the morning. During that time no
Appeals . To begin with, he was not acting in a private
policeman came to arrest him.
capacity when he acted menacingly towards Arlos, it
o He further testified that before the incident he
being clear that his resentment of his poor performance
had no grudge or ill feeling against Arlos. He
rating, surely a matter that concerned his performance of
also testified about the hole located at the lobby
duty, motivated his confronting the latter.
of the Regional Office. He said that no shell or

Moreover, it did not matter that his acts were committed

slug was recovered in connection with the
outside of office hours, because they were intimately
subject incident. He testified about the change
connected to the office of the offender.
made on his performance rating and that he

An act is intimately connected to the office of the

would often meet Fernando Arlos and no
offender if it is committed as the consequence of the
altercation or heated argument transpired
performance of the office by him, or if it cannot exist
between them.
without the office even if public office is not an element of

CSC Regional Office rendered its decision finding

the crime in the abstract. This was the thrust in Alarilla v.
Ganzon guilty of grave misconduct with the penalty of
Sandiganbayan,
dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties

In Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan, the Court resolved that the

(as forfeiture of retirement benefits, and disqualification
crime charged was properly within the jurisdiction of the
from public employment.)
Sandiganbayan because the amended information

Civil Service Commission Main Office (CSC), affirmed

contained allegations showing that Alarilla had taken

CA affirmed.
advantage of his official functions as municipal mayor
ISSUE/HELD: WON Ganzon committed grave misconduct
when he committed the crime of grave threats against the
meriting dismissal (YES)
complainant, a municipal councilor, by aiming a gun at
RATIO:
and threatening to kill the latter on the occasion of a

Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate

public hearing during which the latter delivered a privilege
violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To
speech critical of Alarillas administration. The Court
constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should
explained that the crime charged was "intimately
relate to or be connected with the performance of the
connected with the discharge of Alarillas official
official functions and duties of a public officer.
functions" because the crime charged was Alarillas

In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple

response to the complainants attack against his
performance as a mayor; and that if Alarilla was not the
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
mayor, "he would not have been irritated or angered by
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established
whatever private complainant might have said during said
rule must be manifest.
privilege speech."

In accordance with Section 46 of Subtitle A, Title I,

Considering that Ganzon resented the poor performance
Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive
rating he had received, and his resentment caused his
Order No. 292), misconduct is among the grounds for
aggressive confrontation of Arlos, it definitely appears
disciplinary action, but no officer or employee in the Civil
that Ganzons offense could not be separated from his
Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for
performance of duty.
cause as provided by law and after due process.

The fact that the acts of Ganzon were committed within

The Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases

PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 21

the premises of the DILG Regional Office No. 6

strengthens our view that such acts could not but be
connected to Ganzons public employment.

Verily, the Court has regarded the commission of

offensive overt acts by public officials and
employees within the premises of their public offices
to be deserving of administrative reprobation.

Quiroz v. Orfila: the court employees conduct of shouting

at each other and quarreling within the court premises
and during working hours were considered as exhibiting
discourtesy and disrespect to their co-workers and to the
court itself. Their behavior was held to be contrary to the
ethical standard demanded by Republic Act No. 6713
(Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees).

Baloloy v. Flores: without any warning, respondent stood

up and boxed him several times in the face. Respondent
pursued him and started kicking and banging at the door,
all the while shouting invectives at him. At respondents
office, they saw respondent holding a screwdriver,
provoking them to fight. Finding both the complainant as
legal researcher and the respondent as process server
guilty of misconduct, the Court ruled that:
o ..The conduct and behavior or everyone
connected with an office charged with the
administration of justice must at all times be
characterized by propriety and decorum.
This Court will not tolerate misconduct
committed by court personnel, particularly
during office hours and within court premises

The above ruling is applied to CAB even if court

employees are not involved: Even if the affair occurred
outside of the regular work hours, Ganzons menacing
attitude towards Arlos still had no excuse, particularly as
Arlos was his superior in the office hierarchy. Section
4(c) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct Standards for Public
Officials and Employees) fittingly provides:
o (c) Justness and sincerity. Public officials and
employees shall remain true to the people at all
times. They must act with justness and sincerity
and shall not discriminate against anyone,
especially the poor and the underprivileged.
They shall at all times respect the rights of
others, and shall refrain from doing acts
contrary to law, good morals, good customs,
public policy, public order, public safety and
public interest.

It is almost superfluous to remind all public employees

like Ganzon that the law of good manners and proper
decorum was law during as well as outside office hours.
ADMIN CASE CAN BE RESOLVED SEPARATELY FROM CRIM
CASE

Another ground for Ganzons appeal was that the

administrative case should not have been resolved
independently of the criminal case; and that his eventual
acquittal in the criminal case precluded his administrative
liability.

SC: no. An administrative case is not dependent on the

conviction or acquittal of the criminal case because the
evidence required in the proceedings therein is only
substantial and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
PENALTY OF DISMISSAL PROPER

Finally, Ganzons insistence that the penalty of dismissal

from the service imposed on him was unjustified and
excessive is unwarranted.

After being duly found guilty of grave misconduct,

Ganzon was rightly meted the penalty of dismissal from
the service for his first offense conformably with the
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service, to wit:
o RULE IV Penalties Section 52. Classification of
Offenses. Administrative offenses with
corresponding penalties are classified into
grave, less grave or light, depending on their
gravity or depravity and effects on the
government service.
The following are grave offenses with their corresponding
penalties:
1. Dishonesty;
3. Grave Misconduct;
1st offense Dismissal

Section 56 and Section 58 of the Revised Uniform Rules

on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service state that the
penalty of dismissal shall result in the permanent
separation of the respondent from the service, with or
without prejudice to criminal or civil liability, and shall
carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
retirement benefits and the perpetual disqualification from
re-employment in the government service, unless
otherwise provided in the decision.

The imposition of the correct disciplinary measures upon

erring public officials and employees has the primary
objective of the improvement of the public service and
the preservation of the publics faith and confidence in
the Government.

The punishment of the erring public officials and

employees is secondary, but is nonetheless in accord
with the Constitution, which stresses in Section 1 of its
Article XI that a public office is a public trust, and
commands that public officers must at all times be
accountable to the people, whom they must serve with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.
DISPOSITIVE: AFFIRM

PUB OFF: WEEK 10B | 22