EN BANC
[G.R. No. 127838. January 21, 1999]
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. JOSE J. LUCAS, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The petition for review
on certiorari before the Court assails the decision of
the Court of
Appeals[1] which set
aside the resolution of the Civil Service Commission[2] and reinstated that of the Board of
Personnel Inquiry (BOPI for brevity), Office of the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture,[3] suspending respondent for one month, for
simple misconduct.
To provide a factual
backdrop of the case,
a recital of the facts is
necessary.
On May 26, 1992, Raquel
P. Linatok, an assistant information officer at the Agricultural Information
Division, Department of Agriculture (DA for brevity), filed with the office of
the Secretary, DA, an affidavit-complaint against respondent Jose J. Lucas, a
photographer of the same agency, for misconduct.
Raquel described the
incident in the following manner:
“While standing before a mirror, near the office door of Jose J. Lucas, Raquel noticed a chair at her right side which Mr. Jose Lucas, at that very instant used to sit upon. Thereafter, Mr. Lucas bent to reach for his shoe. At that moment she felt Mr. Lucas’ hand touching her thigh and running down his palm up to her ankle. She was shocked and suddenly faced Mr. Lucas and admonished him not to do it again or she will kick him. But Lucas touched her again and so she hit Mr. Lucas. Suddenly Mr. Lucas shouted at her saying ‘lumabas ka na at huwag na huwag ka nang papasok dito kahit kailan’ A verbal exchange then ensued and respondent Lucas grabbed Raquel by the arm and shoved her towards the door causing her to stumble, her both hands protected her face from smashing upon the door.
Mr. Lucas, bent on literally throwing the affiant out of the
office, grabbed her the second time while she attempted to
regain her posture after being pushed the first time. x
x x while doing all this, Mr. Lucas shouted at the affiant, saying,
‘labas, huwag ka nang papasok dito kahit kailan’.”[4]
On June 8, 1992, the
Board of Personnel Inquiry, DA, issued a summons requiring respondent to
answer the complaint, not to file a
motion to dismiss, within five (5) days from receipt. On June 17, 1992,
respondent Lucas submitted a letter to Jose P. Nitullano, assistant head, BOPI,
denying the charges. According to
Lucas, he did not touch the thigh of complainant Linatok, that what transpired
was that he accidentally brushed Linatok’s
leg when he reached for his shoes and that the same was merely
accidental and he did not intend nor was there malice when his hand got in
contact with Linatok’s leg.
On May 31, 1993, after a formal investigation by the BOPI,
DA, the board issued a resolution finding respondent guilty of simple
misconduct[5] and recommending a penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1)
day. The Secretary of Agriculture approved the recommendation.
In due time, respondent
appealed the decision to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). On July 7, 1994,
the CSC issued a resolution finding respondent guilty of grave misconduct
and imposing on him the penalty of dismissal from the service.[6] Respondent moved for reconsideration but the
CSC denied the motion.
Then, respondent appealed
to the Court of Appeals. On October 29,
1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision setting aside the
resolution of the CSC and reinstating the resolution of the BOPI, DA, stating thus:
“It is true that the Civil Service Act does not define grave and simple
misconduct. There is,
however, no question
that these offenses fall under different
categories. This is clear from a
perusal of memorandum circular No.
49-89 dated August 3, 1989 (also known as the guidelines in the application of
penalties in administrative cases) itself which classifies administrative
offenses into three: grave, less grave and light offenses. The charge of grave misconduct falls under
the classification of grave offenses while simple misconduct is classified as a
less grave offense. The former is
punishable by dismissal while the latter is punishable either by suspension
(one month and one day to six months), if it is the first offense; or by
dismissal, if it is the second. Thus,
they should be treated as separate and distinct offenses.”[7]
The Court of Appeals
further ruled that “a basic requirement of due process on the other hand is
that a person must be duly informed of the
charges against him (Felicito
Sajonas vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 183 SCRA 182). In the instant case however, Lucas came to
know of the modification of the charge against him only when he received notice of the resolution dismissing him from
the service.”[8]
Hence, this petition.
The issues are (a)
whether respondent Lucas was denied due process when the CSC found him guilty
of grave misconduct on a charge of simple misconduct, and (b) whether the act
complained of constitutes grave misconduct.
Petitioner anchors its
position on the view that “the formal charge against a 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, and not the designation of the offense.”[9]
We deny the petition.
As well stated by the
Court of Appeals, there is an existing guideline of the CSC distinguishing
simple and grave misconduct. In the case of Landrito vs. Civil Service
Commission, we held that “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,”[10] which
is obviously lacking in
respondent’s case. Respondent maintains
that as he was charged with simple misconduct, the CSC deprived him of his right
to due process by convicting him of grave misconduct.
We sustain the ruling of
the Court of Appeals[11] that: (a) a basic requirement of due process
is that a person must be duly informed of the charges against him[12] and that
(b) a person can not be convicted of a crime with which he was not
charged.[13]
Administrative
proceedings are not exempt from basic and fundamental procedural principles,
such as the right to due process in
investigations and hearings.[14]
The right to substantive
and procedural due process is applicable in administrative proceedings.[15]
Of course, we do not in
any way condone respondent’s act. Even
in jest, he had no right to touch complainant’s leg. However, under the
circumstances, such act is not constitutive of grave misconduct, in the absence
of proof that respondent was
maliciously motivated. We note
that respondent has been in the service
for twenty (20) years and this is his first offense.
IN VIEW
WHEREOF, the Court hereby DENIES the petition
for review on certiorari and
AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 37137.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero,
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1]
CA-G.R SP No. 37137, promulgated on October 29, 1996, Rollo, pp. 26-34.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 40-46, dismissing Jose J. Lucas from the service.
[3]
Resolution, Board of Personnel Inquiry, Department of Agriculture, Rollo,
pp. 51-63.
[4]
Petition for Review, Rollo, pp. 12-25.
[5] Resolution,
D.A. Case No. 92-309-6, Rollo, pp.
51-63.
[6]
Resolution No. 94 3670, Civil Service Commission, Rollo, pp. 40-46.
[7]
Court of Appeals, Decision, Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, ponente,
Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.
and Romeo A. Brawner, concurring , Rollo, pp. 26-31.
[8]
Idem, on p. 32.
[9]
Petition for Review, Rollo, p.18.
[10] Landrito vs. Civil Service Commission, 223
SCRA 564; see also Arcenio vs. Pogorogon,
224 SCRA 247.
[11] Decision, CA-G.R. No. SP No. 37137, Rollo,
pp. 32-33.
[12] Felicito Sajonas vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 183 SCRA 182.
[13] Embuscado
vs. People of the Philippines, 179 SCRA 589.
[14]
Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil. 635.
[15]
Auyong Hian vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 59 SCRA 111; see also Asprec vs.
Itchon, 16 SCRA 921.