Caballero vs. PCG-ESB

The PCG-ESB has jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary proceedings against PCG uniformed personnel, notwithstanding the PCG’s transfer to the DOTC, because the DOTC’s administrative supervision includes authority to discipline and PCG uniformed personnel are a distinct class not covered by ordinary civil service disciplinary rules.

The Philippine Coast Guard was created by Republic Act No. 5173 as a major unit of the Philippine Navy. Executive Order No. 475 transferred it from the Department of National Defense to the Office of the President, and Executive Order No. 477 transferred it to the Department of Transportation and Communications, which was to exercise administrative supervision over it. Pursuant to that supervision, the DOTC issued Department Order No. 2000-61 creating the PCG Efficiency and Separation Board, Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64 prescribing rules for discharge or separation of PCG officers, and Department Order No. 2002-76 recomposing the Board. Captain Ernesto S. Caballero was a PCG officer, while Dr. Jennifer G. Liwanag was a civilian dentist assigned at the PCG dental detachment.

In August 2002, Captain Ernesto S. Caballero, Commander of the Internal Affairs and Service Headquarters Group of the Philippine Coast Guard, became the subject of a sexual harassment complaint filed by Dr. Jennifer G. Liwanag. Dr. Liwanag was a dentist and a civilian employee of the PCG assigned at the dental detachment of the PCG Headquarters in Port Area, Manila. In her affidavit-complaint, she stated that on or about February 2002, at around 2:00 p.m., Caballero entered the dental detachment to obtain treatment from Dr. Donna B. Dinglasan, a dentist and civilian employee; while waiting in the receiving area, he talked to her and other clinic personnel. As she sat on a bench listening, he walked toward her and suddenly touched her thighs. She was shocked and unable to react. He then sat beside her, very close on her right side, and placed his left hand at the side of her leg, touching and rubbing it in a back-and-forth motion. She immediately stood up and walked away.

She went directly to the treatment room and told Lt. Rodolfo S. Ingel, Jr. about the incident, but he told her to forget about it, saying “Hayaan mo na, matanda na yon.” At around 3:00 p.m. that same day, while on her way to the locker room at the far end of the hallway, she chanced upon Caballero, who had come from the toilet near the locker room. He noticed her; because the locker room was open, he entered and said, “Patingin naman ng locker mo.” He closed the door, suddenly embraced and pulled her toward him, kissed her on the cheek, and forcefully moved his lips toward her lips. She pushed him away and resisted his advances, and he left. She was stunned, shocked, and trembling. She felt insulted, disgusted, humiliated, and sickened; afterward she went to Lt. Ingel crying and told him what transpired in the locker room. She could hardly sleep for many nights, and since May 2002 bad rumors at the headquarters put her in a bad light and made her the center of controversy and mockery. She executed the affidavit-complaint to institute formal criminal and administrative charges against Caballero.

The complaint was referred to the Office of the Coast Guard Judge Advocate. A subpoena directed Caballero to appear before the investigating officers and submit his counter-affidavit and evidence, but he failed to appear. Instead, he questioned the proceedings, claiming that the OCGJA was not the proper office to conduct the investigation. Despite his protest, the investigation proceeded based mainly on Dr. Liwanag’s evidence. Investigating officers Lt. Fedelyn A. Santos and Ens. Mitzie S. Silva recommended that Caballero be tried before the PCG-ESB for misconduct on the ground of sexual harassment. Acting Coast Guard Advocate Lt. Lazaro Ernesto C. Valdez, Jr. endorsed the investigation report to PCG Commandant Reuben Lista and recommended trial before the PCG-ESB despite the pendency of a criminal complaint for acts of lasciviousness before the Department of Justice. On April 11, 2003, Commandant Lista approved the recommendation, and the administrative case was referred to the PCG-ESB.

In April 2003, the PCG-ESB submitted a report observing that Caballero held a very sensitive position and was a member of the PCG Promotions Board B when the incident happened; that his acts constituted misconduct because he abused his authority and moral ascendancy over a female civilian employee who had worked in the PCG for four years and was the wife of a PCG junior officer whose promotion fell under the Board’s jurisdiction; and that, pursuant to DOTC Department Order No. 2000-61 and Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64, the case was submitted to the Board to determine his fitness and suitability to remain in the service. The complaint was supported by individual sworn statements of Dr. Donna B. Dinglasan, Dr. Angelita P. Costa, and Lt. Rodolfo S. Ingel, all detailed at the PCG Dental Detachment where the incident complained of transpired.

On August 14, 2003, Caballero filed before the RTC in Manila a petition for certiorari and prohibition with an application for a temporary restraining order against the PCG-ESB, its members, and Dr. Liwanag. He sought to nullify and set aside the PCG-ESB orders dated July 10, 2003 and July 31, 2003 in ESB Case No. 003-03, entitled “Re: Capt. Ernesto S. Caballero,” for misconduct, as well as DOTC Department Order Nos. 2000-61 and 2002-76 and Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64, which were the basis for constituting the PCG-ESB. In essence, he argued that the PCG-ESB acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the administrative complaint for sexual harassment. This filing precipitated the suit.

• Jurisdiction of the PCG-ESB: Petitioner argued that the PCG-ESB acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of Dr. Liwanag’s administrative complaint for sexual harassment.
• Civil Service Coverage: Petitioner maintained that the transfer of the PCG to the DOTC stripped the ESB, which adopts military rules of procedure, of authority and jurisdiction over him, and that civil service law and rules should govern administrative disciplinary measures against PCG personnel, uniformed or non-uniformed.
• Invalidity of DOTC Issuances: Petitioner sought nullification of DOTC Department Order Nos. 2000-61 and 2002-76 and Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64, the bases for the constitution of the PCG-ESB.
• Bias and Prejudice: Petitioner asserted manifest bias on the part of the PCG-ESB members, which allegedly ousted them of jurisdiction to try and decide his case.
• Reliance on Soriano III vs. Lista: Petitioner invoked Soriano III vs. Lista, claiming that the PCG is under the DOTC and no longer part of the Philippine Navy or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, so that military-type proceedings were inappropriate.

• Jurisdiction of the PCG-ESB: Public respondents maintained that the PCG-ESB has jurisdiction to conduct administrative proceedings against Capt. Caballero.
• Validity of DOTC Issuances: Public respondents argued that DOTC Department Order No. 2000-61, Department Order No. 2002-76, and Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64 are lawful.
• Trial Court Jurisdiction and Timeliness: Public respondents questioned whether the trial court had jurisdiction to pass upon the PCG-ESB orders and to enjoin the administrative proceedings, and whether the petition below questioning the validity of the DOTC issuances was seasonably filed.
• Distinction from Soriano III vs. Lista: Public respondents observed that Soriano III vs. Lista did not rule that PCG officers should be covered by civil service rules; that case concerned confirmation of appointments, not discipline.

• Jurisdiction of the PCG-ESB: Whether the PCG-ESB has jurisdiction to conduct administrative disciplinary proceedings against petitioner, a PCG uniformed officer, despite the PCG’s transfer to the DOTC.
• Governing Disciplinary Regime: Whether PCG uniformed personnel are still covered by the military law on administrative discipline, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the PCG-ESB, or should instead be governed by civil service laws and rules.
• Validity of DOTC Issuances: Whether DOTC Department Order Nos. 2000-61 and 2002-76 and Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64 are lawful bases for the PCG-ESB’s creation, composition, and procedures.
• Bias and Prejudice: Whether the alleged manifest bias of PCG-ESB members ousted them of jurisdiction to try and decide petitioner’s case.

• Jurisdiction of the PCG-ESB: Yes. The PCG-ESB has jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary proceedings against PCG uniformed personnel; EO No. 477 vested the DOTC with administrative supervision over the PCG, and the DOTC created the PCG-ESB pursuant to that authority.
• Governing Disciplinary Regime: No, not ordinary civil service rules. PCG uniformed personnel are a distinct class; the ESB’s military-like procedure does not remove the PCG from civilian agency status or subject uniformed personnel to civil service disciplinary rules.
• Validity of DOTC Issuances: Yes. The DOTC Secretary acted within his jurisdiction and authority under EO No. 292 when issuing Department Order No. 2000-61, Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64, and Department Order No. 2002-76.
• Bias and Prejudice: No. Public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity; a bare allegation of prejudice cannot be sustained, and the evidence overwhelmingly establishes administrative liability.

• Jurisdiction of the PCG-ESB: EO No. 477 transferred the PCG to the DOTC and vested the DOTC with administrative supervision over it. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, administrative supervision includes the authority to take such action as may be necessary for the proper performance of official functions, including rectification of violations, abuses, and other forms of maladministration. Pursuant to this authority, the DOTC created the PCG-ESB to oversee the promotion, discharge, or separation from the service of PCG uniformed personnel and prescribed the rules and procedures for the Board. The authority of the ESB extends only to the promotion, discharge, or separation of uniformed personnel; the non-uniformed or civilian complement of the PCG remains subject to the disciplinary rules of the DOTC, which are the pertinent civil service laws, rules, and regulations. The PCG-ESB therefore validly took cognizance of the administrative case against Caballero.
• Governing Disciplinary Regime: The fact that the ESB’s rules of procedure are akin to those adopted by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine Navy does not remove the PCG from the ambit of a civilian agency. The PCG remains a civilian component of the DOTC regardless of the nature of the ESB’s rules. The PCG is a distinct instrumentality performing the essential function of enforcing the country’s maritime laws, and its officers are not similarly situated as ordinary civil service employees. The adoption of a distinctive administrative disciplinary mechanism different from that of other government agencies is clearly justified. In Manalo vs. Calderon, the Court recognized that the Philippine National Police has an administrative disciplinary system distinct from that of ordinary agencies, and in Fianza vs. People’s Law Enforcement Board, et al., the Court ruled that the term “private citizens” does not ordinarily include men in uniform. The same position applies to the PCG. Petitioner’s reliance on Soriano III vs. Lista is misplaced because the issue there was the legality of PCG officers’ appointments by the President in the absence of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; that case did not tackle discipline and order among PCG uniformed personnel, and nowhere did the Court rule that PCG officers should be covered by civil service rules. Pending bills in the Thirteenth Congress, such as Senate Bills 1287 and 2081 and House Bill No. 5304, likewise treat PCG uniformed personnel as a separate class for discipline and efficiency. Until these bills become law, the jurisdiction and authority of the ESB over uniformed personnel, including its rules of procedure, should be respected; otherwise, the Court would be indulging in impermissible judicial legislation.
• Validity of DOTC Issuances: The DOTC issued Department Order No. 2000-61 creating the PCG-ESB by virtue of EO No. 477 and DND Memorandum Circular No. 30, which provided that all applicable laws pertaining to discipline, law, and order shall remain applicable to the PCG. Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64 prescribed the rules and procedures governing the discharge or separation of PCG officers, including the referral of misconduct cases to the PCG-ESB. Department Order No. 2002-76 recomposed the PCG-ESB. These issuances were within the DOTC’s administrative supervision over the PCG and are lawful.
• Bias and Prejudice: Public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the exercise of their functions. Absent proof to the contrary, the bare allegation that the Board acted with prejudice cannot be sustained. The general rule is that the findings of fact of administrative bodies are conclusive and not subject to review by the Court. In proceedings before administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, substantial evidence is sufficient to establish a fact in issue; that quantum is the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The evidence on record overwhelmingly establishes petitioner’s administrative liability. In addition to Dr. Liwanag’s affidavit, the complaint was supported by the individual sworn statements of Dr. Donna B. Dinglasan, Dr. Angelita P. Costa, and Lt. Rodolfo S. Ingel, all detailed at the PCG Dental Detachment where the incident complained of transpired.

• Administrative Supervision over the PCG — Under EO No. 477, the DOTC exercises administrative supervision over the PCG. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, administrative supervision includes the authority to take such action as may be necessary for the proper performance of official functions, including rectification of violations, abuses, and other forms of maladministration. This authority justified the DOTC’s creation of the PCG-ESB and its issuance of rules for the discipline, discharge, or separation of PCG uniformed personnel.
• Distinct Administrative Disciplinary System for Uniformed Personnel — PCG uniformed personnel are not similarly situated as ordinary civil service employees and are subject to a distinct administrative disciplinary mechanism, even if the PCG is civilian in character. The adoption of military-like rules by the PCG-ESB does not make the PCG a military agency or require the application of civil service disciplinary rules. The Court relied on Manalo vs. Calderon and Fianza vs. People’s Law Enforcement Board, et al., which recognized that uniformed personnel such as PNP members have their own disciplinary system and are not ordinary civil service employees.
• Limited Scope of PCG-ESB Authority — The authority of the PCG-ESB extends only to the promotion, discharge, or separation from the service of PCG uniformed personnel. The non-uniformed or civilian complement of the PCG remains subject to the disciplinary rules of the DOTC, which are the pertinent civil service laws, rules, and regulations.
• Soriano III vs. Lista Is Limited to Appointments — The ruling in Soriano III vs. Lista that the PCG is under the DOTC and no longer part of the Philippine Navy or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and that promotions and appointments of PCG officers do not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, does not govern administrative discipline. That case did not rule that PCG officers should be covered by civil service rules.
• Presumption of Regularity and Substantial Evidence in Administrative Proceedings — Public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the exercise of their functions, and a bare allegation of bias or prejudice cannot overcome it. Findings of fact of administrative bodies are conclusive and not subject to review, and substantial evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion—is sufficient to establish a fact in issue. These principles supported the finding of administrative liability and the rejection of the bias claim.
• Respect for Legislative Proposals and Avoidance of Judicial Legislation — Pending bills in Congress that would govern PCG discipline are not law. Until they are enacted, the jurisdiction and authority of the PCG-ESB over uniformed personnel should be respected; treating the proposals as operative would be impermissible judicial legislation.

• “It bears stressing that the authority of the ESB extends only to the promotion, discharge or separation from the service of uniformed personnel. The non-uniformed or civilian complement of the PCG became subject to the disciplinary rules pervading in the mother department, DOTC, which of course are the pertinent civil service laws, rules and regulations.” — This passage defines the scope of the PCG-ESB’s jurisdiction and clarifies that only uniformed personnel are subject to its authority, while civilian employees remain under civil service rules.
• “That the ESB rules of procedure are akin to the rules permeating administrative proceedings adopted by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine Navy does not remove the PCG from the ambit of a civilian agency. It remains a civilian component of the DOTC regardless of the nature of the rules of procedure of the ESB. This is because the PCG is a distinct instrumentality performing an essential function – that of enforcing the country’s maritime laws. As such, its officers are not similarly situated as ordinary civil service employees. The adoption of a distinctive administrative disciplinary mechanism different from that of other government agencies is clearly justified.” — This is the ratio decidendi on why PCG uniformed personnel may be subjected to a separate disciplinary system despite the PCG’s civilian character.
• “The issue in Lista was the legality of the PCG officers’ appointments by the President in the absence of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The case did not tackle discipline and order among PCG uniformed personnel.” — This distinguishes Soriano III vs. Lista, the principal precedent invoked by petitioner, and confines its ruling to appointments rather than administrative discipline.
• “Public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the exercise of their functions. Absent any proof to the contrary, We cannot sustain the bare allegation of petitioner that the Board acted with prejudice.” — This states the controlling rule on the bias claim and explains why the allegation of prejudice did not oust the PCG-ESB of jurisdiction.

• Soriano III vs. Lista, G.R. No. 153881, March 24, 2003, 399 SCRA 437 (also cited as 447 Phil. 566) — Relied upon by petitioner but distinguished. The Court held that the case concerned the legality of PCG officers’ appointments without confirmation by the Commission on Appointments and did not address discipline and order among PCG uniformed personnel; it did not rule that PCG officers are covered by civil service rules.
• Manalo vs. Calderon, G.R. No. 178920, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 290 — Followed. The Court recognized that the Philippine National Police has an administrative disciplinary system distinct from that of ordinary agencies, and that police officers are not similarly situated with ordinary civil service employees. The Court adopted the same position for PCG uniformed personnel.
• Fianza vs. People’s Law Enforcement Board, et al. — Cited for the proposition that the term “private citizens” does not ordinarily include men in uniform, such as PNP members, and that uniformed personnel are subject to a separate disciplinary regime.
• Canson, et al. vs. Hidalgo, et al. — Cited in Manalo vs. Calderon for the rule that although the PNP is civilian in character, its members are subject to the disciplinary authority of the Chief, Philippine National Police, and courts cannot interfere with valid acts of police officials.
• Megascope General Services vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 109224, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 147 — Cited for the rule that in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, substantial evidence is sufficient to establish a fact in issue.

• Executive Order No. 477, Section 1 — Transferred the PCG from the Office of the President to the DOTC and provided that the DOTC shall exercise administrative supervision over the PCG. This was the basis for the DOTC’s authority to create the PCG-ESB and prescribe disciplinary rules for PCG uniformed personnel.
• Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), Chapter 7, Section 38(2) — Defines administrative supervision as including the authority to take such action as may be necessary for the proper performance of official functions, including rectification of violations, abuses, and other forms of maladministration. The Court applied this provision to uphold the DOTC’s issuances and the PCG-ESB’s jurisdiction.
• DOTC Department Order No. 2000-61 — Created the PCG-ESB. It was issued by the DOTC by virtue of EO No. 477 and DND Memorandum Circular No. 30, which provided that all applicable laws pertaining to discipline, law, and order shall remain applicable to the PCG.
• DOTC Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64 — Prescribed the rules and procedures governing the discharge or separation from the Coast Guard service of PCG officers. Section 2(a) provided for referral of misconduct cases to the PCG-ESB, and Section 4(a) designated the Efficiency and Separation Board as the Philippine Coast Guard Efficiency and Separation Board. It was applied to authorize the proceedings against Caballero.
• DOTC Department Order No. 2002-76 — Provided for the recomposition of the PCG-ESB pursuant to Department Order No. 2000-61. It was upheld as part of the DOTC’s administrative supervision over the PCG.
• DND Memorandum Circular No. 30 — Cited as a basis for DOTC Department Order No. 2000-61, providing that all applicable laws pertaining to discipline, law, and order shall remain applicable to the PCG.
• Executive Order No. 337, series of 1998 — Cited as the basis for DOTC Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64 and the Efficiency and Separation Board. The circular prescribed rules and procedures for the discharge or separation of PCG officers.
• Republic Act No. 5173, Sections 1 and 4 — Created the PCG as a major unit of the Philippine Navy and provided that it shall be administered and maintained as a separate unit of the Philippine Navy. This was the historical starting point for the PCG’s organizational and disciplinary framework.
• Executive Order No. 475 — Transferred the PCG from the Department of National Defense to the Office of the President. Sections 3 and 6 provided for the Transition and Liquidation Committee and for the continued application of AFP pay, allowances, and retirement benefits to PCG uniformed personnel.
• Executive Order No. 477, Sections 3 and 6 — Section 3 directed the Transition and Liquidation Committee to prepare plans and measures covering administration and discipline during the transition period. Section 6 provided that PCG uniformed personnel shall continue to receive the same base pay, longevity pay, and other allowances and benefits authorized for corresponding grades and ranks in the AFP, and shall continue to be covered by the AFP Retirement Law until the PCG establishes its own retirement system.
• Rule 45 — The procedural vehicle for petitioner’s petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno; Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Arturo D. Brion concurred. Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura took no part, having participated in the case as Solicitor General. Justice Antonio T. Carpio filed a separate concurring opinion, concurring in the result that the PCG-ESB has jurisdiction. He emphasized that the PCG became civilian in character after its transfer to the DOTC, but that the DOTC’s creation of the PCG-ESB patterned after the AFP Efficiency and Separation Board did not mean the PCG remained covered by military rules. The DOTC Secretary acted within his administrative supervision under EO No. 292 when issuing Department Order No. 2000-61, Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64, and Department Order No. 2002-76, and thus the PCG-ESB validly had jurisdiction over Caballero.