FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208434. February 10, 2021.]
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,petitioner, vs. ROBERTO C. BUENAFLOR,respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 10, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208434 (Civil Service Commission,Petitioner, v. Roberto C. Buenaflor, Respondent). — Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated 29 November 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 02640-MIN, which reversed and set aside the Resolution No. 080819 3 dated 14 May 2008 and Resolution No. 081912 4 dated 13 October 2008 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), finding Roberto Buenaflor (respondent) liable for simple misconduct.
Antecedents
On 21 November 2003, Dr. Regina Z. Barbers (Barbers) filed a letter- complaint 5 against respondent before the CSC, Caraga Regional Office (CSC-Caraga), charging him with coercion and serious misconduct. She alleged that on 14 October 2003, she was asked to speak in the Community Immersion and Integration Culmination Program (CIIP) at the Academic Center of Surigao State College. She alleged that very few students showed up for the event. Curious on the dismal number of attendees, she interviewed those present. She learned that respondent told his students that he would be giving failing grades to those who would attend the CIIP. Further, respondent allegedly told the students that they would be wasting their contributions to the event because only speakers would be given food and drinks. The letter-complaint was supported by: 1) certification signed by 74 students attesting to the threats/statements made by respondent (certification); 6 2) video tape of the interview with the students which narrated respondent's acts; and a 3) letter statement 7 dated 17 November 2003 of Alex Alvarez (Alvarez), CIIP coordinator.
In his counter-affidavit, 8 respondent denied making threats to fail students who will attend the culmination program. He alleged that he never actually gave a failing grade to those who attended. Finally, he claimed that Barbers and Alvarez conspired in making it appear that his students signed the certification. He attached affidavits 9 of students who denied the contents of the certification.
After conducting preliminary investigation, CSC-Caraga filed a formal complaint 10 against respondent for simple misconduct.
In support of the formal complaint initiated by CSC-Caraga, Barbers submitted affidavits from 1) Alvarez 11 dated 17 August 2004; 2) Dean Felicidad Ruaya (Ruaya); 12 3) security guard Rodel Bullo (Bullo); 13 4) COA State Auditor IV Marites Odtojan (Odtojan). 14 A joint affidavit executed by six (6) students 15 claiming that Buenaflor merely coerced them to sign statements in support of his counter-affidavit was likewise presented by Barbers as evidence.
For his part, respondent claimed that the pieces of evidence submitted against him were false and fabricated. He asserted that complaint's supporting affidavits were hearsay and should not be considered in the determination of his administrative liability. 16
On 23 May 2006, CSC-Caraga found respondent liable for simple misconduct and suspended him from service for six (6) months. 17 The CSC-Caraga likewise denied the respondent's subsequent motion for reconsideration. 18
Ruling of the Civil Service Commission
On 14 May 2008, the Civil Service Commission issued Resolution No. 080819, dismissing the respondent's appeal. 19 It however modified the penalty and imposed a penalty of three (3)-month suspension against respondent. 20 The respondent's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the Civil Service Commission in Resolution No. 081912.
Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for review 21 before the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On 29 November 2012, the CA reversed the CSC Commission Proper.
It found that the Barber's complaint should have been dismissed for failure to attach a certification against forum-shopping. 22 On the substantive merits of the case, it did not find any substantial evidence supporting respondent's administrative liability. It noted that the certification signed by the students was not notarized. It also found that some of the students retracted their previous statements against respondent. Finally, it ruled that the affidavits executed by Alvarez, Ruaya, Bullo, and Odtojan were all hearsay, hence undeserving of credit. 23 Hence this petition.
Issue
This Court is tasked to determine whether the CA erred in dismissing the administrative complaint against respondent for simple misconduct.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is meritorious.
The rule on certification of non-forum
It is true that the law requires that the complaint in proceedings before the CSC be sworn and accompanied by a certification of non-forum shopping. Section 2, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. (EO) 292, provides that:
Sec. 2. Any person may file an administrative complaint with the Commission or any of its proper office. Said complaint shall be in writing and under oath, otherwise, the same shall not be given due course. (Emphasis supplied)
Further, Section 4 (d) of CSC Resolution No. 94-0521, also states that:
Sec. 4. Complaint in Writing and Under Oath. — No complaint against a civil servant shall be given due course, unless the same is in writing and under oath.
The complaint should be written in a clear manner, simple and concise language and in a systematic manner as to apprise the civil servant concerned of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to enable him to intelligently prepare his defense or answer.
The complaint shall also contain the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) a statement that no other administrative action or complaint against the same party involving the same acts or omissions and issues has been filed before another agency or administrative tribunal.
In the absence of any one of the above-mentioned requirements, the complaints shall be dismissed. (Emphasis supplied)
In Gaoiran v. Alcala, 24 however, this Court has explained that the "complaint" under EO 292 and CSC rules on administrative cases "both refer to the actual charge to which the person complained of is required to answer and indicate whether or not he elects a formal investigation should his answer be deemed not satisfactory." The Court elaborated that the requirement of attaching a certification against forum shopping is inapplicable to the letter-complaint filed by respondent therein, as it did not, by itself, commence the administrative proceedings against the concerned teacher, but merely triggered a fact-finding investigation by the disciplining authority. Instead, the Court determined that it was the formal charge and order of preventive suspension charging petitioner therein, a teacher, with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and directing him to submit his answer in writing and under oath, which constituted as the complaint.
Similar to Gaoiran v. Alcala, the formal complaint in this case was the one filed by CSC-Caraga charging respondent with simple misconduct. It officially commenced the administrative proceedings against respondent. Barber's letter merely prompted a fact-finding investigation on the matter. Based from the foregoing, since the formal charge was filed by the disciplining authority, the requirements on verification and certification against non-forum of Barber's letter-complaint are not required.
There is substantial evidence to hold
ARTICLE III
SECTION 1. A teacher is a facilitator of learning and of the development of the youth; he shall, therefore, render the best services by providing an environment conductive to such learning and growth.
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 7. Every teacher shall maintain harmonious and pleasant personal and official relations with other professionals, with government officials, and with the people, individually or collectively.
xxx xxx xxx
ARTICLE VIII
SECTION 1. A teacher has the right and duty to determine the academic marks and the promotion of learners in the subject they handle. Such determination shall be in accordance with generally accepted producers of evaluation and measurement. In case of any complaint, teachers concerned shall immediately take appropriate action, observing the process.
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 6. A teacher shall base the evaluation of the learner's work on merit and qualify of academic performance.
ARTICLE XI
SECTION 3. A teacher shall maintain at all times a dignified personality which could serve as model worthy of emulation by learners, peers, and others.
In this case, by threatening students with failing marks if they attend the CIIP, respondent deprived his students the opportunity to learn from the event. He was unprofessional towards the school guest, and acted in an undignified manner. Certainly, respondent's acts are inconsistent with the objectives of educational institutions in enriching the knowledge of their students. His acts violate the norm of decency and diminish or tend to diminish the people's respect for those in the government service. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object is the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government. 25 However, in the absence of proof of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, this Court agrees that respondent is liable for simple misconduct.
Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple misconduct is classified as a less grave offense with the corresponding penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, while violation of reasonable office rules and regulations is classified as a light offense imposing the penalty of reprimand for the first offense. In the absence of any extenuating circumstance, this Court likewise affirms that suspension for three (3) months is proper.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 29 November 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 02640-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Resolution No. 080819 dated 14 May 2008 and the Resolution No. 081912 dated 13 October 2008 of the Civil Service Commission finding respondent Roberto C. Buenaflor GUILTY of simple misconduct and imposing upon him the penalty of suspension for three (3) months are REINSTATED.
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. 28-66.
2.Id. at 72-80; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Oscar V. Badelles of the Court of Appeals.
3.Id. at 90-92.
4.Id. at 207-210.
5.Id. at 226-227.
6.Id. at 228-230.
7.Id. at 231-232.
8.Id. at 118-119.
9.Id. at 120-129.
10.Id. at 130-131.
11.Id. at 233-240.
12.Id. at 238-240.
13.Id. at 241.
14.Id. at 242-244.
15. The affiants were Jurelou Javier, Charlito Lopez, Allan Villanueva, Mary Jean Perez, Grace Ypamaguirre, Janice Elan, Rose Vic Navarro and Marlita Alita; Rollo, pp. 245-248.
16.Rollo, pp. 132-135.
17.Id. at 132-135; penned by Director IV Adams D. Torres.
18.Id. at 161-163.
19.Id. at 187-194.
20.Id. at 194.
21.Id. at 211-224.
22.Id. at 75-79.
23.Id. at 79-80.
24. G.R. No. 150178, 26 November 2004, 486 Phil. 657 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr.].
25.See Santos v. Rasalan, G.R. No. 155749, 08 February 2007, 544 Phil. 35 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez].