Provincial Government of Bukidnon v. Pancrudo

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 239978. April 3, 2019.]

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF BUKIDNON, REPRESENTED BY GOV. JOSE MA. R. ZUBIRI, JR., petitioner, vs.JUDY L. PANCRUDO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 April 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 239978 — Provincial Government of Bukidnon, represented by Gov. Jose Ma. R. Zubiri, Jr. versus Judy L. Pancrudo

The Petition lacks merit.

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM WITH MODIFICATION the Decision 1 dated January 25, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated May 16, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 07541-MIN, for failure of petitioner Provincial Government of Bukidnon (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding respondent Judy L. Pancrudo (respondent) guilty of Simple Misconduct.

As correctly ruled by the CA, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) did not err in finding respondent guilty of Simple Misconduct and not Serious Dishonesty. Dishonesty has been defined in administrative cases as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud, untrustworthiness, lack of integrity. 3

In Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma4 the Court elucidated on the meaning of Misconduct:

Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. A person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave. 5 (Emphasis supplied)

The Court agrees with the CA and CSC that petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that respondent was impelled by any corrupt or ill motive or intent to gain or profit.

Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the CA. Such findings deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed, as in this case.

However, the Court sees fit to modify the penalty imposed on respondent. Under Section 46 (D) (2) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), 6 Simple Misconduct is considered a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense; and dismissal from the service for the second offense. Section 47 (2) thereof also provides that payment of fine in lieu of suspension shall be available in less grave offenses where the penalty imposed is for six (6) months or less at the ratio of one (1) day of suspension from the service to one (1) day fine. caITAC

Section 48 of the RRACCS provides, among others, that good faith and "first offense" may be considered as mitigating circumstances in the determination of the imposable penalty. The same provision states that the disciplining authority may, in the interest of justice, take and consider the circumstances motu proprio.

The Court notes that respondent was not impelled by any corrupt or ill motive and intent to gain. In fact, she was motivated by her desire to ensure that the medicines and supplies of Bukidnon Provincial Hospital were complete and sufficient to meet the needs of its patients. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record that shows that respondent had committed similar infractions in the past.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated January 25, 2018 and Resolution dated May 16, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07541-MIN finding respondent guilty of Simple Misconduct. The penalty imposed is MODIFIED to a FINE equivalent to one (1) month salary in lieu of suspension.

SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 30-37. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello, with Associate Justices Perpetua T. Atal-Paño and Walter S. Ong concurring.

2.Id. at 38-39.

3.Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres, 567 Phil. 46, 58 (2008).

4. 508 Phil. 569 (2005).

5.Id. at 579-580.

6. CSC Resolution No. 1101502 promulgated on November 8, 2011.