SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217770. October 17, 2018.]
TERESITA A. LEOPARDAS AND EDSEL A. GALEOS, ACTING AS MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ARGAO, petitioners, vs.SOCORRO Z. SEARES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 October 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 217770 — TERESITA A. LEOPARDAS and EDSEL A. GALEOS, acting as MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ARGAO, petitioners, versusSOCORRO Z. SEARES, respondent.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated April 30, 2014 and Resolution 3 dated March 17, 2015, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 05763 which affirmed the Civil Service Commission's (CSC) Resolutions dated April 20, 2010 4 and February 1, 2011, 5 dismissing the complaint against respondent Socorro Z. Seares (Seares) and ordering her reinstatement.
Facts
Seares was the Project Development Officer I of Municipal Planning and Development Office, Municipality of Argao, Cebu. The case stemmed from the loss of the vouchers of Loro Construction in connection with the improvement of farm to market roads in Argao, Cebu. The vouchers were then in the custody of petitioner Teresita A. Leopardas (Leopardas), Administrative Aide IV, Accounting Department of the Municipality of Argao. Leopardas suspected that the missing vouchers were with Seares as the latter had previously tried to borrow them in November 2008 but Leopardas told Seares to put the request in writing and have it approved by the proper authorities. 6
When confronted, Seares was able to produce the vouchers. However, she explained that she did not take the vouchers from Leopardas but other employees must have inadvertently left the documents on top of her table. She kept the vouchers in the meantime as Leopardas was then on official leave. 7 CAIHTE
When Mayor Edsel A. Galeos (Mayor Galeos) learned of the incident, he issued a Memorandum Order 8 dated July 3, 2009 (Memorandum) to Seares directing her to explain in writing within 48 hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for unlawfully taking and bringing the important documents, contract of road project, and vouchers outside the municipal hall. In a letter 9 dated July 6, 2009, Seares denied that she borrowed or unlawfully took the said documents.
Leopardas then wrote a letter-complaint 10 dated July 20, 2009 addressed to Mayor Galeos accusing Seares of theft of the vouchers. Mayor Galeos endorsed Leopardas' letter-complaint to the Argao-Local Government Unit (LGU) Fact-Finding Committee (Committee) for the investigation of the case through a document entitled Endorsement 11 dated July 24, 2009 (Endorsement).
After the conduct of its inquiry and formal hearings, the Committee issued its Report 12 dated September 16, 2009 (Report) recommending that Seares be held guilty of the administrative offenses of "Dishonesty and/or Grave Misconduct through theft."
The pertinent portions of the Committee's Report read:
The fourth element though of the crime of theft which is the taking with intent to gain, was not clearly established. Thus, the crime of theft will not prosper.
To arrive with a resilient recommendation, the committee considered discussing another salient point or issue which was the prior texting of the respondent to the complainant sometime on July 4, 2009 at about 11:19 A.M[.] wherein the respondent said and is hereby quoted in toto[:] "WANAKO LOAD, BAHALA NA OG UNSAON NKO PAGTUBAG BASTA DI JUD KO MOINGON AKONG GHULMAN, AKO INGNON NGA NAHABILIN SA AKNG TABLE." It can be gleaned from the text message that denial of possession of the missing Loro Construction vouchers was already conceived by the respondent coupled by her vehement denial of having borrowed the same or having unlawfully taken them (vouchers) from complainant's table during clarificatory investigation. Thus, DISHONESTY and/or GRAVE MISCONDUCT is established.
xxx xxx xxx
The committee is of the belief that though the proof is not sufficient to sustain a conviction in court for the crime of THEFT, it is also true that the evidence at hand and considered by the Committee is strong and convincing for a fair and reasonable mind to believe that indeed [Seares] committed DISHONESTY and/or GRAVE MISCONDUCT through theft which may warrant dismissal from service under prevailing Civil Service Rules and Laws. 13 (Emphasis supplied)
Pursuant thereto, Mayor Galeos issued Memorandum Order No. 2009-22 14 (Memo 2009-22) dated September 24, 2009 finding Seares guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from service, forfeiture of benefits, and prohibition from re-employment in government service. 15
Seares elevated the case to the CSC. Pending the appeal, Seares requested the Accounting Division of Argao to release her terminal leave benefits, which she received on February 11, 2010. 16
The CSC promulgated its Resolution on April 20, 2010 setting aside Memo 2009-22 as it was issued in violation of Seares' right to due process. The CSC held that the disciplining authority failed to issue a formal charge against Seares contrary to Rule II, Sections 15 17 and 16 18 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service 19 (URACCS). The CSC ordered the reinstatement of Seares to her former position with payment of backwages, without prejudice to the refiling of the case if the evidence so warrants and with compliance with the requirements of due process, as allowed under Section 48 20 of the URACCS (as amended). 21
The CSC denied Mayor Galeos' motion for reconsideration (MR) in its Resolution 22 dated February 1, 2011. DETACa
Mayor Galeos elevated the case to the CA via petition for review under Rule 43. He imputed serious error on the CSC when it did not consider Seares' availment of her terminal leave benefits as abandonment of her appeal. Mayor Galeos also argued that the Memorandum and Endorsement of Leopardas' letter-complaint charging Seares with theft was equivalent to the formal charge required under Section 16 of the URACCS.
The CA denied Mayor Galeos' appeal. The CA held that Seares' receipt of her terminal leave benefits did not equate to an abandonment of her claim for reinstatement or right to assail the legality of her termination, especially as she took positive steps to question her dismissal by filing an appeal with the CSC and filing a motion for execution of the CSC's favorable decision. This proves, the CA held, that she did not abandon her claim for reinstatement as she was persistent in asserting her right. 23
On the issue of lack of formal charge, the CA ruled that Sections 15 and 16 of the URACCS require a formal charge issued by the disciplining authority before the conduct of a formal investigation. The CA found no reason to deviate from the CSC's finding that the absence of a formal charge violated Seares' right to due process. It was only through a formal charge of dishonesty and/or grave misconduct that Seares could have truly and sufficiently defended herself and presented evidence to prove her defenses. Mayor Galeos' Memorandum and Endorsement of Leopardas' letter-complaint for theft cannot equate to the required formal charge. The charge of theft is different from the offenses of dishonesty and grave misconduct which Seares was found guilty of.
Mayor Galeos filed an MR which was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated March 17, 2015.
Undeterred, Mayor Galeos filed the instant Petition under Rule 45 assailing the CA Decision and Resolution. He maintains that Seares was afforded due process and that she was informed of the charge against her. She was also able to participate in the formal investigation in which she was given the opportunity to defend herself.
Mayor Galeos cites the case of Alfornon v. Delos Santos, 24(Alfornon) also coming from an administrative case from the Municipality of Argao. In said case, Aileen Angela Alfornon (Alfornon) was found guilty by the Fact-Finding Committee of dishonesty for concealing a previous charge for the crime of estafa. In her Personal Data Sheet (PDS), she answered "No" to the question "Have you ever been formally charged?" Alfornon admitted the previous estafa charge but reasoned that she merely misunderstood the question because the estafa case was already dismissed.
On appeal to the CSC, the complaint was dismissed as the CSC ruled that Alfornon's right to due process was violated because no formal charge was issued against her. The case was elevated to the CA which reversed the ruling of the CSC. When the issue was raised before the Court, the CA ruling was affirmed. The Court held that there was substantial compliance with the procedure laid down in the URACCS before the case was resolved. On the issue of lack of formal charge, the Court found:
x x x Delos Santos filed a complaint-affidavit against [Alfornon] with a letter addressed to the investigation committee for proper action. On the following day, Galeos endorsed the letter-complaint of Delos Santos to the investigation committee and requested a formal investigation. In our view, this endorsement can be equated to the formal charge required by the URACCS after the preliminary investigation. 25
On the substantive issue, the Court affirmed that Alfornon's misrepresentation in her PDS was dishonesty but modified the penalty to suspension. The penalty of dismissal from service was deemed too harsh considering Alfornon's length of service. The Court ordered Alfornon to be reinstated to her former position. 26
Thus, Mayor Galeos asserts that the Memorandum and Endorsement of Leopardas' letter-complaint for theft should be considered as compliance with the requirement of formal charge. aDSIHc
Seares filed her Comment 27 contending that the CA did not commit any error in affirming the CSC Resolutions. She maintains that a formal charge that strictly complies with Sections 15 and 16 of the URACCS is mandatory in administrative proceedings.
Issue
Whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the CSC Resolutions.
The Court's Ruling
The Petition lacks merit.
In Geronga v. Varela, 28 the Court pronounced the requisites of due process in administrative proceedings:
Two fundamental requirements of due process in administrative cases are that a person must be duly informed of the charges against him; and that he cannot be convicted of an offense or crime with which he was not charged. A deviation from these requirements renders the proceeding invalid and the judgment issued therein a lawless thing that can be struck down any time. 29 (Emphasis supplied)
In recognition of a respondent's right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him, Sections 15 30 and 16 of the URACCS require that the disciplinary authority furnish the employee concerned with a formal charge. Section 16 details the information which must be contained therein:
Section 16. Formal Charge. — After a finding of a prima facie case, the disciplining authority shall formally charge the person complained of. The formal charge shall contain aspecification of charge(s), a brief statement of material or relevant facts, accompanied by certified true copies of the documentary evidence, if any, sworn statements covering the testimony of witnesses, a directive to answer the charge(s) in writing under oath in not less than seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof, an advice for the respondent to indicate in his answer whether or not he elects a formal investigation of the charge(s), and a notice that he is entitled to be assisted by a counsel of his choice. (Emphasis supplied)
To determine whether the Memorandum and Endorsement issued by Mayor Galeos may be considered as the formal charge contemplated under Section 16 of the URACCS, the Court quotes the two documents below:
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 2009-
TO: SOCORRO Z. SEARES
xxx xxx xxx
Date: 03 July 2009
Per written explanation of Luisita Nila Calledo[,] certain files of important documents, contracts of road projects of the Municipality of Argao, vouchers evidencing payments of works accomplished, acceptance of the project, etc. were unlawfully taken by you and brought outside of the municipal hall on reasons only known to you.
Custody of the said documents is no longer part of your present duties and responsibilities. You are hereby directed to explain in writing within 48 hours from receipt hereof why no disciplinary action shall be taken against you.
For your compliance. ETHIDa
(Sgd.)EDSEL A. GALEOSMunicipal Mayor 31
EndorsementJuly 24, 2009
Respectfully forwarded for appropriate action to the Fact-finding Committee of LGU-Argao, the herein attached letter complaint of Mrs. Teresita Leopardas, requesting a formal investigation for the alleged unlawful taking of Loro vouchers.
(Sgd.)32
As can be gleaned from the above documents, the issued Memorandum and Endorsement do not contain the necessary information required by law in a formal charge. The two documents merely contain an accusation of "unlawful taking." They do not contain a statement of material or relevant facts relating to the charge; they are not supported by affidavits of witnesses; they do not contain advice to indicate in respondent's answer the option to undergo formal investigation, and the right to be represented by counsel. The Memorandum also directs Seares to answer the charge in an abbreviated period of 48 hours instead of the allowed 72 hours. The Endorsement is not even addressed to Seares, it was endorsed only to the Committee for the conduct of the investigation. The Memorandum also speaks of documents such as "contracts of road projects of the Municipality of Argao, vouchers evidencing payments of works accomplished, acceptance of the project, etc." 33 while the Endorsement only mentions the Loro Construction vouchers. Evidently, there was non-compliance with the requisite formal charge as required under the URACCS.
The Court has previously ruled that without the requisite formal charge, an administrative case may be dismissed. In Salva v. Valle, 34 the Court held:
A formal charge issued prior to the imposition of administrative sanctions must conform to the requirements set forth in Section 16, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), x x x:
xxx xxx xxx
We have held that if the purported "formal charge" does not contain the foregoing, it cannot be said that the employee concerned has been formally charged. x x x 35
In PAGCOR v. Court of Appeals, 36 the Court also dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of a formal charge:
Citing CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 entitled "Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service," particularly Section 16 thereof on the requirement of a formal charge in investigations, the appellate court correctly ruled that:
As contemplated under the foregoing provision, a formal charge is a written specification of the charge(s) against an employee. While its form may vary, it generally embodies a brief statement of the material and relevant facts constituting the basis of the charge(s); a directive for the employee to answer the charge(s) in writing and under oath, accompanied by his/her evidence; and advice for the employee to indicate in his/her answer whether he/she elects a formal investigation; and a notice that he/she may secure the assistance of a counsel of his/her own choice. A cursory reading of the purported formal charge issued to Manahan shows that the same is defective as it does not contain the abovementioned statements, and it was not issued by the proper disciplining authority. Hence, under the foregoing factual and legal milieu, Manahan is not deemed to have been formally charged. 37
The instant case is different from Alfornon. In Alfornon, although there was no document entitled "formal charge," Alfornon was sufficiently informed of the charge against her of material misrepresentation in her PDS, which she admitted, and for which she was sanctioned. Moreover, in Alfornon, the basis of Mayor Galeos' Endorsement was a notarized complaint-affidavit and letter-complaint, while in the present case, the basis was merely Leopardas' un-notarized letter-complaint. Thus, Alfornon is not on all fours with the present case.
The Court agrees with the CA Decision that Seares' right to due process was violated as she was not informed of the charge against her. Even worse, she was censured for different offenses which were mentioned for the first time only in the Committee Report.
The Memorandum and Endorsement accused Seares of "unlawful taking" or theft of official documents. In its Report however, the Committee held that all the elements of theft had not been established. And yet, what the Committee did in its recommendation was to hold Seares liable for dishonesty and/or grave misconduct on the basis of a text message that she had sent to Leopardas, without any explanation as to the interpretation of the text message or a discussion of the elements of dishonesty and grave misconduct.
Prescinding from the foregoing, the Court holds that the CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the CSC Resolutions. As correctly ruled by both the CSC and the CA, there was a clear violation of Seares' right to due process.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April 30, 2014 and Resolution dated March 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 05763 are AFFIRMED. cSEDTC
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-34.
2.Id. at 36-53. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marie Christine Azcarraga Jacob concurring.
3.Id. at 62-64.
4. Please note that no copy of the said Resolution was attached to the records.
5.Rollo, pp. 201-207.
6.Id. at 37.
7. See id. at 37-38.
8.Id. at 69.
9.Id. at 70.
10.Id. at 71.
11.Id. at 72.
12.Id. at 153-156.
13.Id. at 155-156.
14. Id. at 158-159.
15. Id. at 39, 204.
16. See id. at 39-40.
17. Section 15. Decision or Resolution After Preliminary Investigation. — If aprima facie case is established during the investigation, a formal charge shall be issued by the disciplining authority. A formal investigation shall follow.
In the absence of a prima facie case, the complaint shall be dismissed.
18. Section 16. Formal Charge. — After a finding of a prima facie case, the disciplining authority shall formally charge the person complained of. The formal charge shall contain a specification of charge(s), a brief statement of material or relevant facts, accompanied by certified true copies of the documentary evidence, if any, sworn statements covering the testimony of witnesses, a directive to answer the charge(s) in writing under oath in not less than seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof, an advice for the respondent to indicate in his answer whether or not he elects a formal investigation of the charge(s), and a notice that he is entitled to be assisted by a counsel of his choice.
If the respondent has submitted his comment and counter-affidavits during the preliminary investigation, he shall be given the opportunity to submit additional evidence.
The disciplining authority shall not entertain requests for clarification, bills of particulars or motions to dismiss which are obviously designed to delay the administrative proceedings. If any of these pleadings are interposed by the respondent, the same shall be considered as an answer and shall be evaluated as such.
19. CSC Resolution No. 99-1936, August 31, 1999.
20. Section 48. When to Remand an Appealed Case to Agency of Origin. — If on appeal, the Commission finds that the disciplining authority violated respondent-appellant's right to due process such as the failure to issue a formal charge, the Commission shall dismiss the appealed case and order the immediate reinstatement of the respondent with payment of back salaries and other benefits. However, the dismissal of the case shall be without prejudice on the part of the disciplining authority to re-file it in accordance with law. [As amended by CSC Resolution No. 090120, Amendment to Section 48, Rule III, CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 Dated August 31, 1999 (Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service), January 20, 2009.]
21. See rollo, pp. 40-41.
22. Id. at 201-207.
23. Id. at 48-49.
24. 789 Phil. 462 (2016).
25. Id. at 470.
26. Id. at 474, 476-477.
27. Rollo, pp. 248-251.
28. 570 Phil. 39 (2008).
29. Id. at 54.
30. Section 15. Decision or Resolution After Preliminary Investigation. — If a prima facie case is established during the investigation, a formal charge shall be issued by the disciplining authority. A formal investigation shall follow.
In the absence of a prima facie case, the complaint shall be dismissed.
31. Rollo, p. 69.
32. Id. at 72.
33. Id. at 69.
34. 707 Phil. 402 (2013).
35. Id. at 409-410.
36. 678 Phil. 513 (2011).
37. Id. at 526.