FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217052. September 14, 2021.]
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INQUIRY, INVESTIGATION AND DISCIPLINE (CBIID) OF PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA), petitioners, vs.TEODORO K. CUGTAS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2021which reads as follows: DETACa
"G.R. No. 217052 — CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INQUIRY, INVESTIGATION AND DISCIPLINE (CBIID) OF PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA), petitioners, versusTEODORO K. CUGTAS, respondent.
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) and Philippine Economic Zone Authority's Central Board of Inquiry, Investigation and Discipline (PEZA-CBIID) (collectively petitioners) filed the instant Petition for Review on certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the Decision 2 dated August 30, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 04856, which attenuated the penalty imposed on respondent Teodoro K. Cugtas (Cugtas) and Resolution 3 dated January 29, 2015, which denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration (MR).
The Antecedent Facts
The facts, as summarized in the CA Decision, are as follows:
Philippine Genesis Freight Unlimited, Inc. (PGFUI) had shipments of kitchen equipment for Boracay Shangrila Hotel, a resort in Malay, Aklan, which is accredited by the Philippine Export Processing Zone (PEZA). The clearance of the shipments required an inspection by a PEZA personnel. For such purpose, petitioner Teodoro Cugtas (Cugtas) was issued a Travel Order dated April 2, 2008, which entitled him to transportation expenses and per diem allowances.
In the Sworn Affidavit filed with PEZA, PGFUI President Josefina Yap (Yap), alleged that upon the issuance of his travel order, Cugtas advised PGFUI to book two plane tickets for Boracay, as according to him, he had to bring along a customs police as a matter of procedure. PGFUI arranged for the ticket reservations of Cugtas and one Manuel Cuizon. The two picked up the tickets at the airport and used these to fly to Boracay.
Cugtas and Cuizon arrived in Boracay on April 3, 2008 and conducted the inspection. However, it was not completed and the two had to stay overnight to finish the same. After the inspection on April 4, 2008, Yap allegedly received a call from Josephine Sanches (Sanches), PGFUI's operations manager in Boracay. Sanches informed Yap that Cugtas was asking for a P30,000.00 — overtime fee for him and Cuizon. Initially, Yap refused the demand as the fee was too expensive; and considering also that they had already shouldered the tickets and gave P3,500 each to Cugtas and Cuizon as allowance. Fearing, however, that they may encounter problems with their documents, Yap called back Sanches and instructed her to give the amount demanded, provided that an official receipt be issued. Yap was, however, told that no receipt would be issued; hence, she gave a final instruction to Sanches that no payment would be made without official receipt. When Sanches later called, she informed Yap that Cugtas said it was alright if they do not pay P30,000.00, so long as they would not complain to PEZA.
In a supplemental Sworn Affidavit, Yap further narrated that neither Cugtas, nor Cuizon informed them that the cost of the tickets would be subject to reimbursement by PEZA. However, around the second week of July 2008, Cugtas called PGFUI's representative in Cebu, Ranel Jacquez (Jacquez), and informed the latter that PGFUI Manila filed a complaint, and that he (Cugtas) would reimburse the cost of the tickets. With such advise, Jacquez made a follow up, however, no reimbursement had been made.
In his Answer, Cugtas alleged that it was due to the urgency of the trip, since the items to be inspected were already in the area, and upon the suggestion of Jacquez, that he agreed to have PGFUI advance his transportation expenses, subject however to reimbursement. Upon his return, he immediately processed for the reimbursement of his travel expenses; and when he received its proceeds, he immediately paid the amount advanced by PGFUI through Jacquez. Cugtas vehemently denied demanding overtime fee from Sanches.
After the investigation, PEZA-Central Board of Inquiry, Investigation and Discipline (CBIID) rendered a Decision finding Cugtas guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service and the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service. Cugtas moved for reconsideration but PEZA-CBIID denied his motion.
Cugtas then elevated the matter to the CSC. In his appeal, he bewailed that Yap's affidavit, which became the basis of the formal charge, was hearsay. The same was derived only from the information relayed to her by Sanches. However, Sanches, was never presented during the formal hearing, thereby depriving him of the right to confrontation and cross-examination, and denying him due process. Cugtas also highlighted in his appeal that he had already reimbursed the cost of his ticket, as shown by the acknowledgment receipt signed by Jacquez. He also explained the supposed irregularity pointed out by PEZA that he reimbursed Jacquez on April 18, 2008, when [Cugtas'] claim for reimbursement was paid [by the PEZA] only on April 22, 2008. Cugtas claimed that he resorted to a 5/6 personal loan from a friend just to reimburse Jacquez even before he received the payment of his claim. 4
The CSC Decision
In its Resolution 5 dated September 8, 2009, the CSC affirmed with modification the PEZA-CBIID Decision. 6 The CSC affirmed the finding of grave misconduct but modified the finding of dishonesty to less serious dishonesty. 7
With regard to the allegation that Cugtas demanded overtime fee, the CSC held that the same was inadmissible as hearsay because Philippine Genesis Freight Unlimited, Inc. (PGFUI) Operations Manager Josephine Sanches did not appear as a witness. However, the CSC held that Cugtas' concealment of the fact that his plane fare and allowance were shouldered by PGFUI and his failure to reimburse PGFUI for said travel expenses were sufficient to hold him liable for grave misconduct and less serious dishonesty. The CSC upheld the penalty of dismissal with its accessory penalties, as the CSC considered less serious dishonesty as an aggravating circumstance to the more serious offense of grave misconduct. The CSC also added the accessory penalty of disqualification from taking the Civil Service Exams in the future. 8 Cugtas filed an MR which was denied by the CSC in its Resolution 9 dated January 5, 2010.
Cugtas elevated the case to the CA via a petition for review 10 under Rule 43, praying that he be exonerated of the offense, reinstated in government service, and paid backwages.
The CA Decision
The CA affirmed the common factual findings of the CSC and PEZA-CBIID. However, the CA modified the penalty imposed on Cugtas. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision dated August 30, 2013 reads:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Resolutions No. 09-1307 and 10-0075 dated September 8, 2009 and January 5, 2010, respectively, both issued by the Civil Service Commission, are hereby AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATION, however, that Teodoro K. Cugtas is hereby meted the penalty of SUSPENSION of ONE (1) YEAR WITHOUT PAY, with a warning that a repetition of the offense would be punished with dismissal.
SO ORDERED. 11 (Emphasis in the original)
In modifying the penalty, the CA appreciated the mitigating circumstances that it was Cugtas' first offense and his length of time in government service (more than twenty (20) years). 12 The CA denied CSC and PEZA-CBIID's MR in its Resolution dated January 29, 2015.
Thus, herein petitioners CSC and PEZA-CBIID filed the instant Petition maintaining that the appropriate penalty for Cugtas' acts is dismissal from service with its accessory penalties, and not merely suspension. 13 Cugtas filed his Comment 14 asserting that the CA correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstances in determining the proper penalty and praying that the CA Decision be affirmed in toto. Petitioners filed a Reply 15 reiterating that Cugtas should be meted the ultimate penalty of dismissal.
Issue
Whether the CA committed reversible error in modifying the penalty imposed on Cugtas.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
Upon a judicious review of the case, the Court finds that CA committed no reversible error in appreciating as mitigating factors in the imposition of the penalty the length of Cugtas' service and that this was his first offense.
The prevailing administrative rules at the time of the commission of the offense were the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. 16 Section 53 thereof allows the disciplining authority to consider the mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty. 17
Jurisprudence is replete with cases involving grave offenses punishable by dismissal, where the Court had appreciated mitigating factors to justify the imposition of a lesser penalty. 18 Length of service is an alternative circumstance which the Court has applied in previous cases to mitigate the penalty imposed on the erring government employee. 19 The Court has also refrained from imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service where the erring employee had not been previously charged with an administrative offense. 20
In Camsol v. Civil Service Commission, 21 the employee was found guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for procuring a fake civil service eligibility despite knowing that she did not pass the civil service exams. Instead of dismissing Camsol, the Court imposed upon her the penalty of suspension of one (1) year without pay, considering her length of service, advanced age, and family circumstances.
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Sirios, 22 the employee was found guilty of falsification of public document and dishonesty when she falsified entries in her daily time record to cover her absences and tardiness. The Court however, did not impose the penalty of dismissal and acknowledged that it was the employee's first offense in imposing the penalty of suspension of three (3) months without pay.
In De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza, 23 the respondent sheriff was found guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for collecting unauthorized fees and unlawful exaction; but instead of imposing the penalty of dismissal, the Court meted the penalty of suspension for one (1) year without pay, as it was the respondent's first offense.
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Ibay24(Ibay), the employee was found guilty of dishonesty when she forged the signature of a co-worker on a check and encashed said check. Nevertheless, the Court did not dismiss the employee but suspended her for seven (7) months without benefits, considering that it was her first offense and her admission thereof. In Ibay, the Court also stated that the penalty next lower in degree to dismissal from service is suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year without benefits including leave credits. 25
Thus, the Court has exercised its sound discretion and tempered the harshness of the penalties imposable on erring employees when mitigating factors are present and when a lower penalty would suffice, instead of imposing automatic dismissal.
Guided by the rules and the above judicial precepts, the Court finds that the CA did not commit any reversible error in reducing the penalty imposed on Cugtas from dismissal from service with its accessory penalties to suspension of one (1) year. The imposable penalty for grave misconduct is dismissal 26 and the penalty for less serious dishonesty is suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. 27 Even so, however, considering the presence of the mitigating circumstances of length of service and first offense, the reduced penalty of suspension of one (1) year without pay, as imposed by the CA, is proper. Considering Cugtas' length of service of more than twenty (20) years and clean record in the past as this was his first offense, the CA's ruling which mitigated the penalty from dismissal to one-year suspension is in accord with law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 30, 2013 and Resolution dated January 29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 04856 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24-42.
2.Id. at 11-20. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan.
3.Id. at 8-10. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (a retired member of this Court) and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court).
4.Id. at 12-14.
5.Id. at 113-124, issued by CSC Chairman Ricardo L. Saludo with the concurrence of Commissioner Mary Ann Z. Fernandez-Mendoza while Commissioner Cesar D. Buenaflor, on leave.
6.Id. at 62-111. Decision dated December 16, 2008 in CBIID ADM. Case No. 2008-01 issued by the CBIID composed of Chairperson Alma Florence A. Logronio and Members Nicanor M. Olivar and Nestor Hun A. Nadal and approved by Director General Lilia B. De Lima.
7.Id. at 124.
8.Id. at 121-124.
9.Id. at 126-129, issued by CSC Commissioner Mary Ann Z. Fernandez-Mendoza with the concurrence of Acting Chairman Cesar D. Buenaflor.
10.Id. at 174-185.
11.Id. at 20.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 24-42.
14.Id. at 190-194.
15.Id. at 247-255.
16. CSC Resolution No. 991936, approved on August 31, 1999.
17.Section 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.
The following circumstances shall be appreciated:
a. Physical illness
b. Good faith
c. Taking undue advantage of official position
d. Taking undue advantage of subordinate
e. Undue disclosure of confidential information
f. Use of government property in the commission of the offense
g. Habituality
h. Offense is committed during office hours and within the premises of the office or building
i. Employment of fraudulent means to commit or conceal the offense
j. Length of service in the government
k. Education, or
l. Other analogous circumstances
Nevertheless, in the appreciation thereof, the same must be invoked or pleaded by the proper party, otherwise, said circumstances shall not be considered in the imposition of the proper penalty. The Commission, however, in the interest of substantial justice may take and consider these circumstances. (Emphasis supplied; italics in the original)
18.Camsol v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 238059, June 8, 2020, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66771>.
19.Fact-finding and Intelligence Bureau, Represented by Atty. Melchor Arthur H. Carandang, Office of the Ombudsman v. J. Fernando U. Compaña, G.R. No. 173865, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 680, 691-693, citing the cases of Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Sec. I, and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Off. Clerk of Court, A.M. No. 2001-7-SC & 2001-8-SC, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 1, 18-19; Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr., A.M. No. P-99-1342, September 20, 2005, 470 SCRA 218, 222-223; and Buntag v. Paña, G.R. No. 145564, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 302, 307.
20.Office of the Court Administrator v. Sirios, A.M. No. P-02-1659, August 28, 2003, 410 SCRA 35.
21.Supra note 18.
22.Supra note 20.
23. A.M. No. P-03-1693, March 17, 2005, 453 SCRA 565.
24. A.M. No. P-02-1649, November 29, 2002, 393 SCRA 212.
25.Id. at 216.
26. CSC Resolution No. 991936, Sec. 52, reads:
Section 52. Classification of Offenses. — x x x
A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:
xxx xxx xxx
3. Grave Misconduct
1st offense — Dismissal (Emphasis and italics in the original)
27. RULES ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY, CSC Resolution No. 060538, Sec. 2 (b), approved on April 4, 2006.