EN
BANC
|
EUGENIO R. AVENIDO,
Petitioner, - versus
- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 177666 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES, AZCUNA,
TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
REYES, DE
CASTRO, and BRION,
JJ. Promulgated: Promulgated: April 30, 2008 |
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM
This is a
Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision dated 18 January
2007, rendered by the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 93210,[1]
affirming the Resolution[2]
dated 6 August 2004, issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), finding
petitioner Eugenio Avenido guilty of Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service, which warranted his dismissal.
While petitioner was employed as an Administrative Officer at
the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), he was approached by a town
mate, Pablo Daz (Daz), who was a representative of Animus International Inc.
(Animus International), a corporation engaged in the business of importing
mobile telephone units and Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards. During this visit from Daz, petitioner
personally prepared an Order of Payment for a Permit to Import Cellular Phones
in favor of Animus International.
Thereafter, petitioner accompanied Daz to the office of Marcelo M.
Bunag, Jr. (Bunag), the acting assessor and processor of the Amateur, Dealer
and Manufacturer Service of the NTC licensing unit. Since petitioner formerly served as an assessor,
and is now Bunag’s superior, Bunag relied on petitioner’s judgment and approved
the Order of Payment prepared by the petitioner, which by itself, appeared
regular. Petitioner then personally
delivered the Order of Payment, together with the payment for the assessed fees
of Two Hundred Forty Pesos (P240.00), to the Cashier. Ivy Daban (Daban), Clerk I and acting
cashier, received the payment and issued an Official Receipt for the Permit to
Import Cellular Phones.[3]
In
a facsimile letter dated
Further investigation conducted by
Arnold P. Barcelona (Barcelona), Engineer V and Chief of the Enforcement &
Monitoring Section of the NTC, showed that Animus International did not even
file any application for a Permit to Import, an important requisite before the
preparation of an Order of Payment and the issuance of a Permit to Import. Animus International, however, was able to
import approximately P40,000,000.00 worth of cellular phone SIM
cards. Bunag and
On
During the formal investigation conducted by the NTC,
petitioner was given an opportunity to present his defense. He submitted a certification by the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) stating that the signature appearing in the
Permit to Import was not his. Petitioner
averred that the signature was forged by his town mate, Daz. He only admitted to preparing the Order of
Payment for the Permit to Import and personally delivered the payment therefor
to the Cashier; and he did so “merely to
accommodate one of his townsmate(s), an act of hospitality, which is very much
characteristic of the Filipino culture.” [7]
In its Decision dated P240.00. The NTC underscored the following
irregularities in petitioner’s acts: (1) the preparation of an Order of Payment
without having been presented with an application for Permit to Import and
other requirements, and (2) personally delivering the Order of Payment to the
Cashier, instead of turning over the documents to Bunag, who should deliver the
same to the Cashier. By acting in such
manner, petitioner evinced a special interest in the issuance of a Permit to
Import in favor of Animus International and a lack of concern for the proper
procedure imposed by the government in the issuance of permits and
licenses. The NTC also took note of the
unusual fact that petitioner did not take any legal action against Daz who had
falsified his signature, and caused grave damage to his reputation. The NTC suspended petitioner from service for
ten (10) months.[8] The dispositive part of the Decision stated
that:
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the Commission finds respondent EUGENIO R. AVENIDO guilty of the lighter offense of “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service” and hereby imposes upon him the penalty, for the 1st Offense, of Suspension for Ten (10) months, effective upon notice, during which period respondent shall not be entitled to all money benefits including leave credits, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.[9]
On appeal, the CSC affirmed the
findings of the NTC in its Decision dated
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Eugenio R.
Avenido is hereby DISMISSED.
However, the Decision of the National Telecommunications Company dated
In the
Decision dated
Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the afore-mentioned Decision of the Court
of Appeals, which was denied in a Resolution dated
Hence, in
the present Petition, the following issues are being raised:[14]
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WAS AFFORDED AMPLE DUE PROCESS OF LAW;
II
WHETHER OR NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OBTAINS TO SUPPORT CHARGES AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
The petition is bereft of merit.
Petitioner
claims that he was deprived of due process of law when the NTC, thru a Show
Cause Order, charged him with Dishonesty, Falsification of Public Documents and
Usurpation of Authority, and then found him guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service, an offense which he avers is so different
from the offenses with which he was earlier charged.[15]
This Court has
already ruled in Dadubo v. Civil Service
Commission, that the designation of the offense or offenses with which a
person is charged in an administrative case is not controlling and one may be
found guilty of another offense, where the substance of the allegations and
evidence presented sufficiently proves one’s guilt:
It is true that the petitioner
was formally charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the bank
and not specifically with embezzlement. Nevertheless, the allegations and the
evidence presented sufficiently proved her guilt of embezzlement of bank funds,
which is unquestionably prejudicial to the best interest of the bank.
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.[16]
Due process mandates that a party be
afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may
have in support of his defense. In
administrative proceedings such as the one at bench, due process simply means
the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[17] In
the instant case, petitioner was furnished a copy of the charges against him
and he was able to file an answer and present evidence in his defense.
Consequently, a decision was rendered by the NTC finding him guilty of an
offense which was not specifically designated in the Show Cause Order, but was
still based on acts that were alleged therein, specifically, making an
assessment for the Order of Payment for an applicant who had not even complied
with the requirements; and personally delivering the Order of Payment to the
Cashier, instead of turning over the documents to the authorized officer, who
should deliver the same to the Cashier. Clearly, therefore, due process was
observed in this case.
Acts
may constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of his/her
public office. The Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act
No. 6713) enunciates, inter alia, the State policy of promoting a high
standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. Section 4(c) of the Code commands that
“[public officials and employees] 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.”[18] By showing undue interest in securing for
Animus International a Permit to Import, even if it had not complied with the
requirements, petitioner compromised the image and integrity of his public
office. Dishonesty and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service are intrinsically connected
since acts of dishonesty would indubitably tarnish the integrity of a public
official.
Petitioner asserts that the finding
of guilt against him is not supported by substantial evidence. While he insists that his act of making the
assessment in the Order of Payment is a commendable act of an accommodating
civil servant, it was not his duty to evaluate whether Animus International was
a qualified applicant for a Permit to Import.[19] Such assertion is absurd. Common sense dictates that any officer who
takes it upon himself to make an assessment of the fees for the issuance of a
permit or license should also take it upon himself to ensure that the applicant
is qualified. To permit a government
official to prepare assessments for the issuance of permits or licenses and not
place upon him or her the concurrent duty of examining the requirements would
not only be inefficient, but would also open the floodgates of corruption. Petitioner’s act of making the assessment
implies that he had already examined the required documents and had found them
sufficient. Bunag, the acting assessor
of the licensing unit concerned, had in fact been misled by this same presumption
when petitioner personally delivered to him the Order of Payment. As it turned out, Animus International had
not even applied for a Permit to Import and was not an accredited dealer for
Motorola, but was nevertheless able to illegally import P40,000,000.00
worth of SIM cards and Motorola cellular phones. By willfully turning a blind eye to Animus
International’s failure to comply with legal requisites and misleading his NTC
colleagues, petitioner had not acted as a diligent civil servant as he claimed,
but rather a dishonest and dishonorable public official.
Petitioner also makes much of the
findings made by the NBI that his signature in the Permit to Import was
forged. Such fact, however, does not
negate a finding of guilt on the part of petitioner, who himself admitted that
he prepared and made the assessment in the Order of Payment without examining
the documents required of Animus International.
It was by his own act that left room for Animus International to
perpetuate the use of a false permit.
Public service requires utmost
integrity and discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the
highest sense of honesty and integrity for no less than the Constitution
mandates the principle that “a public office is a public trust and all public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.”[20] The Courts cannot overemphasize the need for
honesty and accountability in the acts of government officials.
In all, the consistent findings of
the NTC, the CSC and the Court of Appeals on the petitioner’s guilt deserve
utmost respect, where their conclusions are supported by the admissions made by
petitioner, as well as the testimonies of Bunag and Daban.
Well-settled in our jurisdiction is
the doctrine that findings of fact of administrative agencies must be respected
as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence is
not overwhelming or preponderant. The quantum of proof necessary for a finding
of guilt in administrative cases is only substantial evidence or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[21]
Findings of fact of administrative
bodies, if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on the reviewing
authority. It is not for the appellate
court to substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on
the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. Administrative decisions on matters
within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and can only be set aside on
proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.[22]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in
C.A.-G.R. SP No. 93210, promulgated on
SO ORDERED.
|
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RENATO C. CORONAAssociate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
|
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
TERESITA LEONARDO DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate
Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza with Associate Justices Remedios A.
Salazar-Fernando and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring. Rollo,
pp. 103-115.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] G.R.
No. 106498,
[17] National Police Commission v. Inspector
Bernabe, 387 Phil. 819, 827 (2000).
[18]
[19] Rollo, pp. 204-208.
[20] Re: (1) Lost Checks Issued to the Late
Roderick Roy P. Melliza, Former Clerk II, MCTC, Zaragga, Iloilo and (2)
Dropping from the Rolls of Ms. Esther T. Andres, A.M. No. 2005-26-SC, 22
November 2006, 507 SCRA 478, 498.
[21] Lumiqued v. Exevea, G.R. No. 117565,
[22] Dadubo v. Civil Service Commission, supra
note 16 at 752-753.