8/30/2015

G.R.No.146053

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
BaguioCity

SECONDDIVISION

DIOSCOROF.BACSIN,G.R.No.146053
Petitioner,
Present:

QUISUMBING,J.,Chairperson,
versusCARPIOMORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO,JR.,and
BRION,JJ.

EDUARDOO.WAHIMAN,Promulgated:
Respondent.
April30,2008
xx

DECISION

VELASCO,JR.,J.:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner Dioscoro F. Bacsin questions the
[1]
datedAugust23,2000oftheFirstDivisionoftheCourtofAppeals(CA)in

Decision

CAG.R. SP No. 51900, which affirmed Resolution No. 980521 dated March 11, 1998
and Resolution No. 990273 dated January 28, 1999, both issued by the Civil Service
Commission(CSC),dismissingpetitionerfromtheserviceforGraveMisconduct.

FactsoftheCase

Petitioner is a public school teacher of Pandan Elementary School, Pandan, Mambajao,

CamiguinProvince.RespondentEduardoO.Wahiman
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/146053.htm

1/8

8/30/2015

G.R.No.146053

isthefatherofAAA,anelementaryschoolstudentofthepetitioner.

AAAclaimedthatonAugust16,1995, petitioner asked her to be at his office to do an

[2]
Onceinside,shesawhimgetafolderfromoneofthecartonsonthefloornear

errand.

histable,andplaceitonhistable.Hethenaskedhertocomecloser,andwhenshedid,
heldherhand,thentouchedandfondledherbreast.Shestatedthathefondledherbreast
[3]
A classmate of hers, one Vincent B. Sorrabas,

five times, and that she felt afraid.

claimingtohavewitnessedtheincident,testifiedthatthefondlingincidentdidhappenjust
asAAArelatedit.

[4]

Petitioner was charged with Misconduct in a Formal Charge dated February 12,
1996byRegionalDirectorVivencioN.Muego,Jr.oftheCSC.

[5]

Inhisdefense,petitionerclaimedthatthetouchingincidenthappenedbyaccident,justas
[6]
He further stated that the incident happened in

he was handing AAA a lesson book.

abouttwoorthreeseconds,andthatthegirllefthisofficewithoutanycomplaint.

[7]

ResolutionoftheCSC

In Resolution No. 980521 dated March 11, 1998, the CSC found petitioner guilty of
[8]
GraveMisconduct(ActsofSexualHarassment),anddismissedhimfromtheservice.
Specifically, the CSC found the petitioner to have committed an act constituting sexual
harassment, as defined in Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7877, the AntiSexual
HarassmentActof1995.

Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration,butthesamewasdeniedinResolutionNo.
990273datedJanuary28,1999.

DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/146053.htm

2/8

8/30/2015

G.R.No.146053

Petitioner then brought the matter to the CA under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure,therecoursedocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.51900.

PetitionerraisedthefollowingissuesbeforetheCA:

1.Whetherornottherewereeffortsby[AAA],herparentsandtheHonorableCivil
Service Commission to magnify the accidental touching incident on August 16,
1995

2.Whetherornottheguiltofthepetitionerwassupportedbytheevidenceonrecord
and

3.Whetherornottherewasirregularityintheimpositionofthepenaltyofremoval.
[9]

Inresolvingthecase,theCAdeterminedthattheissuerevolvedaroundpetitioners
right to due process, and based on its finding that petitioner had the opportunity to be
heard,foundthattherewasnoviolationofthatright.TheCAruledthat,evenifpetitioner
was formally charged with disgraceful and immoral conduct and misconduct, the CSC
found that the allegations and evidence sufficiently proved petitioners guilt of grave
misconduct,punishablebydismissalfromtheservice.

TheIssuesBeforeUs

Thepetitionernowraisesthefollowingissuesinthepresentpetition:

1.Whetherornotthepetitionercouldbeguiltyofactsofsexualharassment,grave
misconduct, which was different from or an offense not alleged in the formal
chargefiledagainsthimattheinceptionoftheadministrativecase.

2. Assuming petitioner was guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct and

misconduct as charged by complainant, whether or not the penalty of dismissal
from the service imposed by the Civil Service Commission and affirmed by the
CourtofAppealsisinaccordwithRuleXIV,Section(23)oftheOmnibusCivil
ServiceRulesandapplicablerulings.

3.WhetherornotthechargeofMisconduct,alesseroffense,includestheoffenseof
GraveMisconductagreateroffense.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/146053.htm

3/8

8/30/2015

G.R.No.146053

Thepetitioniswithoutmerit.

Petitioner argues that the CSC cannot validly adjudge him guilty of an offense,
suchasGraveMisconduct(ActsofSexualHarassment),differentfromthatspecifiedin
the formal charge which was Misconduct. He further argues that the offense of
MisconductdoesnotincludethegraveroffenseofGraveMisconduct.

Thisargumentisunavailing.

AsDadubov.CivilServiceCommissionteaches:

The charge against the respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted
with the precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is
apprisedofthesubstanceofthechargeagainsthimwhatiscontrollingistheallegationof
[10]
theactscomplainedof,notthedesignationoftheoffense.

It is clear that petitioner was sufficiently informed of the basis of the charge
against him, which was his act of improperly touching one of his students. Thus
informed, he defended himself from such charge. The failure to designate the offense
specificallyandwithprecisionisofnomomentinthisadministrativecase.

The formal charge, while not specifically mentioning RA 7877, The AntiSexual
Harassment Act of 1995, imputes on the petitioner acts covered and penalized by said
law. Contrary to the argument of petitioner, the demand of a sexual favor need not be
explicitorstated.InDomingov.Rayala,

[11]
itwasheld,Itistruethatthisprovisioncalls

forademand,requestorrequirementofasexualfavor.Butitisnotnecessarythatthe
demand,request,orrequirementofasexualfavorbearticulatedinacategoricaloralor
written statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the
offender. The CSC found, as did the CA, that even without an explicit demand from
petitioner his act of mashing the breast of AAA was sufficient to constitute sexual
harassment. Moreover, under Section 3 (b) (4) of RA 7877, sexual harassment in an
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/146053.htm

4/8

8/30/2015

G.R.No.146053

educationortrainingenvironmentiscommitted(w)henthesexualadvancesresultinan
intimidating,hostileoroffensiveenvironmentforthestudent,traineeorapprentice.AAA
[12]
It cannot then be

eventestifiedthatshefeltfearatthetimepetitionertouchedher.

saidthattheCSClackedbasisforitsruling,whenithadboththefactsandthelaw.The
CSCfoundtheevidencepresentedbythecomplainantsufficienttosupportafindingof
grave misconduct. It is basic that factual findings of administrative agencies, when
supportedbysubstantialevidence,arebindingupontheCourt.

Leaving aside the discrepancy of the designation of the offense in the formal
charge,itmustbediscussedwhetherornotpetitionerisindeedguilty,asfoundbythe
CAandCSC,ofGraveMisconduct,asdistinguishedfromSimpleMisconduct.Fromthe
findingsoffactoftheCSC,itisclearthatthereismisconductonthepartofpetitioner.
Thetermmisconductdenotesintentionalwrongdoingordeliberateviolationofaruleof
[13]

laworstandardofbehavior.

WeagreewiththerulingsoftheCSCandtheCA.

Ingravemisconduct,theelementsofcorruption,clearintenttoviolatethelaw,or
[14]
flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest.
The act of petitioner of
fondlingoneofhisstudentsisagainstalaw,RA7877,andisdoubtlessinexcusable.The
particular act of petitioner cannot in any way be construed as a case of simple
misconduct.Sexuallymolestingachildis,byanynorm,arevoltingactthatitcannotbut
becategorizedasagraveoffense.Parentsentrustthecareandmoldingoftheirchildren
toteachers,andexpectthemtobetheirguardianswhileinschool.Petitionerhasviolated
that trust. The charge of grave misconduct proven against petitioner demonstrates his
unfitnesstoremainasateacherandcontinuetodischargethefunctionsofhisoffice.
Petitionerssecondargumentneednotbediscussedfurther,ashewasrightlyfound
guilty of grave misconduct. Under Rule IV, Section 52 of the CSC Uniform Rules on
AdministrativeCases,GraveMisconductcarrieswithitthepenaltyofdismissalforthe
firstoffense.Thus,thepenaltyimposedonpetitionerisinaccordancewiththeRules.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/146053.htm

5/8

8/30/2015

G.R.No.146053

Petitionerwasnotdenieddueprocessoflaw,contrarytohisclaims.The essence
of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek for a
[15]
reconsiderationoftheactionorrulingcomplainedof.
Theseelementsarepresentin
this case, where petitioner was properly informed of the charge and had a chance to
refuteit,butfailed.

Ateacherwhopervertshispositionbysexuallyharassingastudentshouldnotbe
allowed,underanycircumstance,topracticethisnobleprofession.Soitmustbehere.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this petition is hereby DISMISSED,

andthedecisionoftheCAinCAG.R.SPNo.51900isherebyAFFIRMED.

Costsagainstpetitioner.

SOORDERED.

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/146053.htm

6/8

8/30/2015

G.R.No.146053

WECONCUR:

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CONCHITACARPIOMORALESDANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/146053.htm

7/8

8/30/2015

G.R.No.146053

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeMartinS.Villarama,Jr.andconcurredinbyPresidingJusticeSalomeA.Montoya(retired)
andAssociateJusticeRomeoJ.Callejo,Sr.(nowretiredmemberoftheCourt).
[2]
Rollo,p.86.
[3]
Id.at8990.
[4]
Id.at87.
[5]
Id.at46.
[6]
Id.at70.
[7]
Id.at87.
[8]
Id.at92.
[9]
Id.at2930.
[10]
G.R.No.106498,June28,1993,223SCRA747,754.
[11]
G.R.No.155831,February18,2008.
[12]
Rollo,p.90.
[13]
CivilServiceCommissionv.Manzano,G.R.No.160195,October30,2006,506SCRA113,127.
[14]
Baylonv.FactfindingIntelligenceBureau,G.R.No.150870,December11,2002,394SCRA21,3435.
[15]
Zacariasv.NationalPoliceCommission,G.R.No.119847,October24,2003,414SCRA387,393.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/146053.htm

8/8