ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138976. June 27, 2000]

ANGELES PAGMANOJA vs. CA, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 27 2000.

G.R. No. 138976 (Angeles Pagmanoja vs. Court of Appeals and the Civil Service Commission.)

Petitioner Angeles Pagmanoja, a former Associate Professor I at the Sultan Kudarat Polytechnic College, Lutayan Campus, Sultan Kudarat, was administratively charged by respondent Civil Service Commission with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The administrative proceeding stemmed from an affidavit-complaint of Ramon Genova, a former principal of the Tacurong Municipal High School. Genova alleged that petitioner took the 31 July 1988 Civil Service Commission Sub-Professional Examination for Mrs. Dioleta Tonog which eventually enabled the latter to serve as Clerk of the Tacurong Municipal High School. During the investigation the documentary evidence (Exhs. "A" to "D" and "1" to "8") revealed that the application form and seat plan of Mrs. Tonog bore the picture of petitioner.

On 28 August 1997 the Civil Service Commission issued Resolution No. 973706 finding petitioner and Mrs. Tonog guilty of dishonesty and ordering their dismissal from the service with all the accessory penalties. They were also perpetually disqualified from holding public office and from taking any government examination in the future. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in Resolution No. 981381 dated 4 June 1998.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court of Appeals but on 18 December 1998 the appellate court denied her petition. On 11 June 1999 her Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied.

In this Petition for certiorari, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in affirming the resolution of respondent Civil Service Commission despite the fact that the Commission's administrative investigation was conducted without due process as she was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant Ramon Genova. Petitioner also argues that the findings of respondent Commission are not supported by evidence.

The petition should be dismissed. No grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Court of Appeals.

While it may be true that the complainant was never presented as witness, this does not automatically mean that petitioner was denied due process. The essence of due process is that a party should be afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have to support his defense.1 Concerned Officials of MWSS v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 1091103, 25 January 1995, 240 SCRA 502. Due process in administrative proceedings simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.2 Padilla v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 109444, 31 March 1995, 243 SCRA 155. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, the guilt of petitioner was sufficiently established by substantial evidence required in administrative proceedings, i.e., such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise, citing Santos v. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 524 (1994), and Manuel v. N.C. Construction Supply, 282 SCRA 326 (1997). In the instant case, petitioner was informed of the formal charges against her. She filed her answer to the charges and participated in the formal investigation where she was represented by counsel and even filed a motion for reconsideration after receiving an unfavorable ruling. Surely, it cannot be denied that due process was observed. The fact that she was unable to cross-examine Genova was due to her own fault. The Civil Service Rules allows a respondent in a formal investigation to require attendance of witnesses through the compulsory process of subpoena.3 Sec. 25, par. (b), Rule XVIII (D), Civil Service Rules. However, petitioner did not make use of this process. Thus, she cannot now claim that she was deprived of the opportunity to confront her accuser.

As to the findings of respondent Commission, well settled is the rule that the findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected so long as such findings are supported by substantial evidence even if it might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.4 Rubencia v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 115942, 31 May 1995, 244 SCRA 640. Hence, even if the Commission relied solely on documentary evidence, such direct evidence, if substantial could be sufficient basis for finding petitioner guilty of the charges against her.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 18 December 1998 affirming Resolution No. 973706 of the Civil Service Commission, as well as its Resolution denying reconsideration, is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE