Primary Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Civil Service Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and while Belagan was guilty of grave misconduct, his long service and unblemished record warranted a modified penalty of one-year suspension without pay instead of dismissal.

Background

Dr. Allyson Belagan, a Superintendent of DECS in Baguio City, was accused of sexual harassment by Magdalena Gapuz, a private school teacher, and Ligaya Annawi, a public school teacher. Gapuz alleged that Belagan kissed her during an inspection of her school premises, while Annawi accused him of multiple instances of sexual harassment and other administrative malfeasances. The DECS conducted an investigation and found Belagan guilty, leading to his dismissal. The CSC affirmed the DECS decision regarding Gapuz but dismissed Annawi's complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC's decision, prompting the CSC to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Facts

• 1. Magdalena Gapuz accused Belagan of kissing her during an inspection of her school premises.
• 2. Ligaya Annawi accused Belagan of multiple instances of sexual harassment and administrative malfeasances.
• 3. DECS found Belagan guilty and ordered his dismissal.
• 4. CSC affirmed the DECS decision regarding Gapuz but dismissed Annawi's complaint.
• 5. Court of Appeals reversed the CSC's decision, citing Gapuz's questionable character.
• 6. Supreme Court reinstated the CSC's decision but modified the penalty to a one-year suspension without pay.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The Court of Appeals erred in not giving credence to Magdalena Gapuz's testimony.
• 2. The Court of Appeals failed to give due weight to the findings of the DECS.
• 3. Belagan should be penalized under Section 22(e) of the Omnibus Rules, not Section 22(o).

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Magdalena Gapuz's derogatory record undermines her credibility.
• 2. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the complaint.
• 3. Belagan has an unblemished record of 37 years in government service.

Issues

• 1. Whether Magdalena Gapuz's credibility is undermined by her derogatory record.
• 2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the CSC's decision.
• 3. Whether Belagan should be penalized for grave misconduct or a lesser offense.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court held that Magdalena Gapuz's derogatory record, consisting of cases filed in the 1980s, was too remote to affect her credibility in the 1994 incident.
• 2. The Court found that the CSC's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including Gapuz's detailed and consistent testimony.
• 3. The Court agreed that Belagan committed grave misconduct but modified the penalty to a one-year suspension without pay, considering his long service and unblemished record.

Doctrines

• 1. Character Evidence: The character of a witness may be attacked to impeach credibility, but only if it is relevant to the offense charged.
• 2. Substantial Evidence Rule: Factual findings of administrative bodies, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.
• 3. Mitigating Circumstances: Length of service and unblemished record can be considered in determining the appropriate penalty.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under this provision. Only those which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged."
• 2. "While we will not condone the wrongdoing of public officers and employees, however, neither will we negate any move to recognize and remunerate their lengthy service in the government."

Precedents Cited

• 1. People vs. Tempongko, Jr. (1986): Cited to illustrate that even a morally loose individual can be a victim of sexual assault.
• 2. Vedania vs. Judge Valencia (1998): Cited as a similar case where the penalty was modified due to the respondent's long service.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Section 51(a)(3), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence: Pertains to the admissibility of character evidence in criminal cases.
• 2. Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292: Classifies administrative offenses and their corresponding penalties.