THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 216423. January 30, 2019.]
HIGINO FRANCISCO V. PEÑONES, JR., petitioner, vs.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 30, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 216423 (Higino Francisco V. Peñones, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission). — This Petition for Review 1 filed by Higino Francisco C. Peñones (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to annul and set aside the Decision 2 dated December 23, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 134234.
The petitioner is employed by the City Government of Iriga, Camarines Sur as an Information Officer IV. Sometime in 1997, the petitioner was chosen by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), through its Regional Office, as the beneficiary of its Local Scholarship Program for the school year 1998-1999. 3
Pursuant to the scholarship contract, the petitioner undertook to comply with the following obligations:
SCHOLARSHIP CONTRACT
xxx xxx xxx
We hereby agree to the following terms/conditions and obligations:
GRANTEE — That I shall:
1. Complete all requirements within one year;
xxx xxx xxx
1.8. Refund to the Civil Service Commission the full amount as may have been defrayed by the Commission for my scholarship grant and to repay my office/agency for my salary and other expenses incurred incidental to the grant for failure to comply with any of the foregoing conditions through my fault or willful neglect, resignation, voluntary retirement, or any other causes within my control. 4
The petitioner, however, failed to finish the course within one year. On November 6, 1998, the petitioner wrote a letter to the CSC signifying his intent to waive the scholarship grant due to familial and financial constraints. 5
On February 11, 2009, the CSC Regional Office sent a letter to the petitioner requesting that the petitioner refund the expenses incurred for his studies in the amount of Php5,438.95, within fifteen (15) days from receipt. 6 CAIHTE
On account of the petitioner's failure to pay, the CSC Regional Office issued an Order 7 dated May 7, 2012, directing the petitioner to explain why no administrative disciplinary action should be filed against him.
In response to the Order, the petitioner submitted his sworn letter 8 dated May 14, 2012. Therein, the petitioner claimed that he did not personally received the CSC's February 11, 2009 notice. He acknowledged his obligation and expressed his willingness to comply with the same. 9
On June 20, 2012, the CSC Regional Office issued a Resolution 10 finding probable cause to formally charge the petitioner, viz.:
WHEREFORE, Higino Francisco V. Peñones, Jr. is hereby formally charged with Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. He is given three (3) days from receipt hereof within which to submit his Answer under oath, together with the affidavits of his witnesses and documentary evidence, if any. He is advised to indicate in his Answer whether or not he elects a formal investigation of the charges against him and is notified that he may opt to be assisted by a counsel of his choice. 11
On June 19, 2013, the CSC Regional Office rendered its Decision, 12 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Higino Francisco V. Peñones, Jr. is held LIABLE for the offenses of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and meted the penalty of dismissal and its accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking civil service examinations, in accordance with the rules. 13
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said Decision, but the same was denied by the CSC Regional Office in its Resolution 14 dated August 23, 2013.
The petitioner elevated the matter to the CSC proper which issued its Decision 15 dated January 14, 2014, affirming with modification the ruling of the CSC Regional Office in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal (treated as a Petition for Review) of Higino Francisco V. Peñones, Jr., x x x is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 19, 2013 of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. V, Legazpi City, finding him guilty of the administrative offenses of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and meted upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service and its accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking civil service examinations is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION to the extent that, as regards the forfeiture of his retirement benefits, his own premiums and voluntary deposits, if any, shall not be forfeited. 16
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition for review before the CA. On February 26, 2016, the CA rendered its Decision 17 dismissing the petition.
In its decision, the CA sided with the CSC in finding that the petitioner, in failing to pay, acted in clear disregard of the CSC established rules on refund, and exhibited a willful intention to disobey the same rules. Further, the CA found no merit in the petitioner's plea for mitigation of penalty, explaining that the penalty for the offense with which he was found liable is indivisible and as such is not susceptible to mitigation.
Thus, this petition for review on certiorari, 18 whereby the petitioner submits the following issues for the Court's resolution:
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED. DETACa
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CAUSE OF ACTION OF THE CSC AGAINST THE PETITIONER HAS ALREADY PRESCRIBED.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER HAS RECEIVED THE FEBRUARY 11, 2009 LETTER-DEMAND SIGNED BY DIRECTOR NIETO.
IV.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER HAVE INTENTIONALLY EVADED REFUNDING THE CSC OF THE SUM OF PHP5,438.95.
V.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CSC IS IN BAD FAITH IN FORMALLY CHARGING THE PETITIONER FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE. 19
The petitioner argues that the CA erred in adjudging him guilty of the offenses of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, submitting in the main that: a) the CSC's right of action has already prescribed; and b) he had no intent to evade his obligation to refund the subject amount.
The petitioner's submission referring to prescription implying that the action can no longer prosper on the ground of prescription is misplaced. It is an established rule that owing to their very nature and objective, administrative offenses do not prescribe. Administrative offenses pertain to the character of public officers and employees, the objective of which is not the punishment of the officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in our government. 20 Therefore, the petitioner cannot just claim that since obligation is based upon a written contract the same has already prescribed 21 as the charge is, in essence, administrative in nature.
Now, the Court proceeds with the discussion of the complaint.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. What qualifies misconduct from simple to grave are additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules. These additional elements must be established by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. Verily, to warrant dismissal, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous and not trifling. 22
In this case, the Court finds that the penalty of dismissal is not commensurate with the offense committed by the petitioner. The Court notes in this regard that at the earliest opportunity, the petitioner informed the CSC of his decision not to continue with the scholarship program; of the petitioner's consistent admission of and willingness to comply with his obligation to return the amount he received from the grant; the latter's physical impossibility to make such refund at the time of demand by the CSC as the petitioner is then in the United States; and finally, the trivial amount involved. On account of which circumstances, the petitioner's failure to immediately return the amount cannot be regarded as misconduct that is grave enough to warrant dismissal. Nonetheless, considering that the petitioner is still clearly in remiss of his duty to comply with his contractual obligation to refund, liability still attaches, albeit there being no clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule. 23 Considering that this is the petitioner's first offense, the Court notes that the appropriate penalty to be imposed against him is reprimand.
The Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that light offenses such as the willful failure to pay just debt, akin to the subject infraction, is punishable with the penalty of reprimand for the first offense. 24 The penalty shall not carry with it any accessory penalties. 25 The petitioner must then be reinstated to his former position without loss of seniority rights. aDSIHc
Further, under Section 51 (E) of the said Revised Uniform Rules, when the penalty of reprimand is "imposed on appeal as a result of modification of the penalty of suspension or dismissal from service, the respondent shall be entitled to the payment of back salaries and other benefits which would have accrued during the period of his suspension or dismissal." In this case, the CSC and the CA both adjudged the petitioner liable for Grave Misconduct thus meting him the penalty of dismissal. The Court herein, finding that the petitioner is merely guilty of a light offense punishable only by reprimand, is therefore, entitled to backwages during his period of suspension, if any. 26
Finally, the petitioner's failure to refund constitutes an obligation for the payment of sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, accordingly, the interest due is twelve percent (12%) per annum from the time the obligation to pay the same arose, that is on February 11, 2009 until June 30, 2013; and therefrom or on July 1, 2013 until fully paid at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. 27
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated December 23, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 134234 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Higino Francisco V. Peñones, Jr. is hereby adjudged GUILTY of light offense and is imposed with the penalty of REPRIMAND.
Further, petitioner Higino Francisco V. Peñones, Jr. is ORDERED to REFUND to respondent Civil Service Commission, the amount of Php5,438.95 with legal interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, computed from February 11, 2009 to June 30, 2013 and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until their full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-24.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Socorro B. Inting, concurring; id. at 32-38.
3.Id. at 32-38.
4.Id. at 47-48.
5.Id. at 49.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 50.
8.Id. at 51-52.
9.Id. at 51.
10.Id. at 54.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 87-91.
13.Id. at 91.
14.Id. at 102-103.
15.Id. at 119-125.
16.Id. at 125.
17.Id. at 32-38.
18.Id. at 9-24.
19.Id. at 18-19.
20.Office of the Ombudsman v. De Sahagun, et al., 584 Phil. 119, 126 (2008).
21.Cf Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Judge Villalon-Pornillos, 609 Phil. 504, 525 (2009).
22.Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, 508 Phil. 569, 586 (2005).
23.Office of the Ombudsman v. De Zosa, et al., 751 Phil. 293, 299-300 (2015).
24. Section 46 (F) (2), Rule 10.
25. Section 52 (F), Rule 10.
26.National Power Corp. v. Olandesca, 633 Phil. 278, 293 (2010).
27. Article 1169, Civil Code; Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al., 716 Phil. 267, 278-279 (2013).