EN BANC
[G.R. No. 137473.
August 2, 2001]
ESTELITO V. REMOLONA, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
The present petition seeks to
review and set aside the Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals dated July
31, 1998[1] upholding the decision of the Civil Service
Commission which ordered the dismissal of petitioner Estelito V. Remolona
(Remolona) from the government service for dishonesty, and the Resolution dated
February 5, 1999[2] denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Records show that petitioner
Estelito V. Remolona is the Postmaster at the Postal Office Service in Infanta,
Quezon, while his wife Nery Remolona is a teacher at the Kiborosa Elementary
School.
In a letter[3] dated January 3, 1991, Francisco R. America, District
Supervisor of the Department of Education, Culture & Sports at Infanta,
Quezon, inquired from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as to the status of
the civil service eligibility of Mrs. Remolona who purportedly got a rating of
81.25% as per Report of Rating issued by the National Board for Teachers.[4] Mr. America likewise disclosed that he received
information that Mrs. Remolona was campaigning for a fee of P8,000.00
per examinee for a passing mark in the teacher's board examinations.
On February 11, 1991, then CSC
Chairman Patricia A. Sto. Tomas issued an Order directing CSC Region IV
Director Bella Amilhasan to conduct an investigation on Mrs. Remolona's
eligibility, after verification from the Register of Eligibles in the Office
for Central Personnel Records revealed "that Remolona's name is not in the
list of passing and failing examinees, and that the list of examinees for
December 10, 1989 does not include the name of Remolona. Furthermore, Examination No. 061285 as
indicated in her report of rating belongs to a certain Marlou C. Madelo, who
took the examination in Cagayan de Oro and got a rating of 65.00%."[5]
During the preliminary
investigation conducted by Jaime G. Pasion, Director II, Civil Service Field
Office, Lucena City, Quezon, only petitioner Remolona appeared. He signed a written statement of facts[6] regarding the issuance of the questioned Report of
Rating of Mrs. Remolona, which is summarized in the Memorandum[7] submitted by Director Pasion as follows:
"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."
Furthermore, Remolona admitted
that he was responsible in acquiring the alleged fake eligibility, that his
wife has no knowledge thereof, and that he did it because he wanted them to be
together. Based on the foregoing,
Director Pasion recommended the filing of the appropriate administrative action
against Remolona but absolved Mrs. Nery Remolona from any liability since it
has not been shown that she willfully participated in the commission of the
offense.
Consequently, a Formal Charge
dated April 6, 1993 was filed against petitioner Remolona, Nery C. Remolona,
and Atty. Hadji Salupadin for possession of fake eligibility, falsification and
dishonesty.[8] A formal hearing ensued wherein the parties presented
their respective evidence. Thereafter,
CSC Regional Director Bella A. Amilhasan issued a Memorandum dated February 14,
1995[9] recommending that the spouses Estelito and Nery
Remolona be found guilty as charged and be meted the corresponding penalty.
Said recommendation was adopted by
the CSC which issued Resolution No. 95-2908 on April 20, 1995, finding the
spouses Estelito and Nery Remolona guilty of dishonesty and imposing the
penalty of dismissal and all its accessory penalties. The case against Atty. Hadji Salupadin was held in abeyance
pending proof of his identity.[10] In its Resolution No. 965510[11] dated August 27, 1996, the CSC, acting on the motion
for reconsideration filed by the spouses Remolona, absolved Nery Remolona from
liability and held that:
"Further, a review of the records and of the arguments presented fails to persuade this Commission to reconsider its earlier resolution insofar as Estelito Remolona's culpability is concerned. The evidence is substantial enough to effect his conviction. His act of securing a fake eligibility for his wife is proved by substantial evidence. However, in the case of Nery Remolona, the Commission finds her innocent of the offense charged, for there is no evidence to show that she has used the fake eligibility to support an appointment or promotion. In fact, Nery Remolona did not indicate in her Personal Data Sheet that she possesses any eligibility. It must be pointed out that it was her husband who unilaterally worked to secure a fake eligibility for her.
WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied insofar as respondent Estelito Remolona is concerned. However, Resolution No. 95-2908 is modified in the sense that respondent Nery Remolona is exonerated of the charges. Accordingly, Nery Remolona is automatically reinstated to her former position as Teacher with back salaries and other benefits."
On appeal, the Court of Appeals
rendered its questioned decision dismissing the petition for review filed by
herein petitioner Remolona. His motion
for reconsideration and/or new trial was likewise denied. Hence, this petition for review.
Petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals erred:
“1. in denying petitioner's motion for new trial;
2. in holding that petitioner is liable for dishonesty; and
3. in sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner for an offense not work connected in relation to his official position in the government service.”
The main issue posed for
resolution is whether a civil service employee can be dismissed from the
government service for an offense which is not work-related or which is not
connected with the performance of his official duty. Remolona likewise imputes a violation of his right to due process
during the preliminary investigation because he was not assisted by
counsel. He claims that the
extra-judicial admission allegedly signed by him is inadmissible because he was
merely made to sign a blank form. He
also avers that his motion for new trial should be granted on the ground that
the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the hearing of the case
before the Regional Office of the CSC was not forwarded to the Court of
Appeals. Finally, he pleads that the
penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits is too harsh considering
the nature of the offense for which he was convicted, the length of his service
in government, that this is his first offense, and the fact that no damage was
caused to the government.
The submission of Remolona that
his alleged extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because he was not
assisted by counsel during the investigation as required under Section 12
paragraphs 1 and 3, Article III of the 1987 Constitution deserves scant
consideration
The right to counsel under Section
12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under
custodial investigation. Custodial
investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular
suspect who had been taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of
interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. It is when questions are initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. The right to counsel attaches only upon the
start of such investigation. Therefore,
the exclusionary rule under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights
applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those
made in an administrative investigation.[12]
While investigations conducted by
an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact
remains that under existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or
may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and
of the respondent's capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on such
body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel. In an administrative proceeding, a
respondent has the option of engaging the services of counsel or not. This is clear from the provisions of Section
32, Article VII of Republic Act No. 2260 (otherwise known as the Civil Service
Act) and Section 39, paragraph 2, Rule XIV (on discipline) of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise known as the
Administrative Code of 1987). Thus, 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. As such, the hearing conducted by the
investigating authority is not part of a criminal prosecution.[13]
In the case at bar, Remolona was
not accused of any crime in the investigation conducted by the CSC field
office. The investigation was conducted
for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and whether there is a prima facie
evidence sufficient to form a belief that an offense cognizable by the CSC has
been committed and that Remolona is probably guilty thereof and should be
administratively charged. Perforce, the
admissions made by Remolona during such investigation may be used as evidence
to justify his dismissal.
The contention of Remolona that he
never executed an extra-judicial admission and that he merely signed a blank
form cannot be given credence. Remolona
occupies a high position in government as Postmaster at Infanta, Quezon and, as
such, he is expected to be circumspect in his actions specially where he is
being administratively charged with a grave offense which carries the penalty
of dismissal from service.
Remolona insists that his
dismissal is a violation of his right to due process under Section 2(3),
Article XI (B) of the Constitution which provides that “no officer or employee
in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause.” Although
the offense of dishonesty is punishable under the Civil Service law, Remolona
opines that such act must have been committed in the performance of his
function and duty as Postmaster.
Considering that the charge of dishonesty involves the falsification of
the certificate of rating of his wife Nery Remolona, the same has no bearing on
his office and hence, he is deemed not to have been dismissed for cause. This proposition is untenable.
It cannot be denied that
dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first
offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of
Executive Order No. 292. And 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. The rationale for the rule is that 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.[14]
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.[15]
The general rule is that where the
findings of the administrative body are amply supported by substantial
evidence, such findings are accorded not only respect but also finality, and
are binding on this Court.[16] It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the
conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise
substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the
sufficiency of evidence.[17] Thus, when confronted with conflicting versions of
factual matters, it is for the administrative agency concerned in the exercise
of discretion to determine which party deserves credence on the basis of the
evidence received.[18] The rule, therefore, is that courts of justice will
not generally interfere with purely administrative matters which are addressed
to the sound discretion of government agencies unless there is a clear showing
that the latter acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion or when
they have acted in a capricious and whimsical manner such that their action may
amount to an excess of jurisdiction.[19]
We have carefully scrutinized the
records of the case below and we find no compelling reason to deviate from the
findings of the CSC and the Court of Appeals.
The written admission of Remolona is replete with details that could
have been known only to him. No
ill-motive or bad faith was ever imputed to Director Pasion who conducted the
investigation. The presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed remains unrebutted.
The transmittal of the transcript
of stenographic notes taken during the formal hearing before the CSC is
entirely a matter of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 of
this Court clearly states that in resolving appeals from quasi-judicial
agencies, it is within the discretion of the Court of Appeals to have the
original records of the proceedings under review transmitted to it.[20] Verily, the Court of Appeals decided the merits of
the case on the bases of the uncontroverted facts and admissions contained in
the pleadings filed by the parties.
We likewise find no merit in the
contention of Remolona that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh considering
that there was no damage caused to the government since the certificate of
rating was never used to get an appointment for his wife, Nery Remolona. Although 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.[21] 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.[22]
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Pardo, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo,
Panganiban, Buena, JJ., on
official leave.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on leave.
[1] Penned by Associate
Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero with Cui and Alino-Hormachuelos, JJ.,
concurring; Rollo, 34-47.
[2] Rollo, 49.
[3] Exhibit
"A"; Rollo, 54.
[4] Exhibit
"C"; Ibid., 56.
[5] Exhibit
"B"; Ibid., 55.
[6] Exhibit
"E-1"; Ibid., 60.
[7] Exhibit
"E"; Ibid., 58-59.
[8] Annex B, Petition; Rollo,
50.
[9] Original Record, 1.
[10] Annex F, Petition; Rollo,
76-79.
[11] Annex G, id.;
Ibid., 80-85.
[12] Manuel, et al. vs.
N.C. Construction Supply, et al., 282 SCRA 326, 334-335 (1997).
[13] Lumiqued, et al. vs.
Exevea, et al., 282 SCRA 125, 140-142 (1997).
[14] Nera vs.
Garcia, et al., 106 Phil 1031, 1035-1036 (1960).
[15] Bautista vs.
Negado, et al., 108 Phil 283, 289 (1960).
[16] Tiatco vs.
CSC, et al., 216 SCRA 749 (1992).
[17] Paper Industries
Corp. of the Phils. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, 184 SCRA 606 (1990).
[18] Gelmart Industries
(Phil.), Inc. vs. Leogardo, Jr., et al., 155 SCRA 403 (1987).
[19] Cuerdo vs.
Commission on Audit, 166 SCRA 657 (1988).
[20] Torres, Jr., et al.
vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 278 SCRA 793, 809 (1997).
[21] Regalado vs. Buena,
309 SCRA 265, 270 (1999).
[22] Alawi vs. Alauva,
268 SCRA 628 (1997).