Remolona vs. Civil Service Commission

Dishonesty committed by a government employee, even if unrelated to the performance of official duties or committed outside office hours, constitutes a grave offense warranting dismissal from service because it affects the employee's fitness to continue in office and undermines public trust in government.

The case arose from an inquiry by a school district supervisor regarding the civil service eligibility of petitioner's wife, Nery Remolona, a teacher at Kiborosa Elementary School. The supervisor received information that she possessed a fraudulent eligibility certificate and was allegedly campaigning to guarantee passing marks in teacher's board examinations for a fee of P8,000 per examinee. Verification by the CSC revealed that Mrs. Remolona's name did not appear in the list of examinees for the stated date, and the examination number indicated in her Report of Rating actually belonged to another examinee who took the test in a different location.

• Petitioner Estelito V. Remolona was the Postmaster at the Postal Office Service in Infanta, Quezon, while his wife Nery Remolona was a teacher at Kiborosa Elementary School.
• On January 3, 1991, Francisco R. America, District Supervisor of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports at Infanta, Quezon, wrote to the CSC inquiring about Mrs. Remolona's civil service eligibility status, claiming she obtained a rating of 81.25% as per a Report of Rating issued by the National Board for Teachers.
• America disclosed information that Mrs. Remolona was campaigning for a fee of P8,000 per examinee to guarantee passing marks in teacher's board examinations.
• On February 11, 1991, CSC Chairman Patricia A. Sto. Tomas ordered an investigation after verification revealed that Remolona's name was not in the list of passing or failing examinees, the list of examinees for December 10, 1989 did not include her name, and Examination No. 061285 indicated in her Report of Rating belonged to Marlou C. Madelo, who took the examination in Cagayan de Oro and received a rating of 65.00%.
• During the preliminary investigation conducted by Jaime G. Pasion, Director II of the CSC Field Office in Lucena City, only petitioner Remolona appeared and executed a written statement admitting that in September 1990, he met a certain Atty. Hadji Salupadin on a bus who offered to secure an eligibility for his wife for P3,000.
• Remolona admitted paying P2,000 initially and P1,000 plus a P500 bonus in exchange for the fake Report of Rating bearing his wife's name with a passing grade.
• Remolona further admitted that when he felt Mr. America would verify the authenticity of the document, he burned the original Report of Rating.
• Remolona claimed sole responsibility, stating his wife had no knowledge of the falsification, and that he acted merely to enable them to work together.
• Based on the investigation, Director Pasion recommended filing administrative action against Remolona but absolved Mrs. Nery Remolona from liability for lack of evidence of willful participation.
• A Formal Charge dated April 6, 1993 was filed against petitioner, his wife, and Atty. Hadji Salupadin for possession of fake eligibility, falsification, and dishonesty, followed by a formal hearing where the parties presented evidence.

• The Court of Appeals erred in denying his motion for new trial.
• The Court of Appeals erred in holding him liable for dishonesty.
• The Court of Appeals erred in sustaining his dismissal for an offense not work-connected or related to his official position as Postmaster.
• He was denied due process during the preliminary investigation because he was not assisted by counsel as required under Section 12, paragraphs 1 and 3, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
• His extra-judicial admission is inadmissible because he was merely made to sign a blank form.
• His motion for new trial should be granted because the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the hearing before the CSC Regional Office was not forwarded to the Court of Appeals.
• The penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits is too harsh considering the nature of the offense, his length of service in government, that this is his first offense, and the fact that no damage was caused to the government.

• Dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292.
• Dishonesty need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty or connected to the office to warrant dismissal, as the government cannot tolerate dishonest officials and private life cannot be segregated from public life.
• The right to counsel under the Constitution applies only to criminal custodial investigations, not administrative investigations, and the Civil Service Act and Omnibus Rules do not require assistance of counsel in administrative proceedings.
• The findings of the CSC are supported by substantial evidence, including petitioner's detailed written admission, and are therefore entitled to respect and finality.
• The penalty of dismissal is appropriate regardless of pecuniary damage because falsification of an official document constitutes gross dishonesty, especially for an accountable officer in a sensitive position.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for new trial based on the failure to transmit the transcript of stenographic notes from the CSC proceedings.
  • Whether the constitutional right to counsel under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution applies to preliminary administrative investigations.
  • Whether the extra-judicial admission signed by petitioner is admissible as evidence.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a civil service employee can be dismissed from government service for dishonesty committed outside the performance of official duties or unrelated to the position.
  • Whether the penalty of dismissal is proper despite the absence of pecuniary damage to the government.

• Procedural:
  • The Court of Appeals did not err in denying the motion for new trial; under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, the transmission of original records of proceedings to the Court of Appeals is discretionary, and the CA decided the case based on uncontroverted facts and admissions contained in the pleadings.
  • The right to counsel under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution applies only to criminal custodial investigations, not administrative investigations; under Section 32, Article VII of Republic Act No. 2260 (Civil Service Act) and Section 39, paragraph 2, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, and no duty rests on the administrative body to furnish counsel.
  • The admission is admissible because the investigation was administrative, not criminal, conducted merely to determine whether facts meriting disciplinary action existed; petitioner, as a high-ranking official, is expected to be circumspect and cannot credibly claim he signed a blank form while facing grave administrative charges.
• Substantive:
  • Dishonesty need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty to warrant dismissal; the government cannot tolerate dishonest officials because their position provides opportunity and influence to commit dishonest acts, and private life cannot be segregated from public life as dishonesty inevitably reflects on fitness for office and the discipline and morale of the service.
  • The penalty of dismissal is not harsh; although no pecuniary damage was incurred, the falsification of an official document constitutes gross dishonesty that cannot be countenanced, particularly because petitioner was an accountable officer occupying a sensitive position.

• Dishonesty as a Grave Offense — Defined as a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292; need not be work-related or committed during official hours because it affects the officer's fitness to continue in office and undermines public trust in government service.
• Right to Counsel in Administrative Proceedings — The constitutional right to counsel under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution applies only to criminal custodial investigations where police focus on a particular suspect in custody; administrative investigations are not criminal prosecutions and do not require the assistance of counsel.
• Substantial Evidence Rule — Findings of administrative bodies supported by substantial evidence are accorded not only respect but also finality; courts do not weigh conflicting evidence, determine credibility of witnesses, or substitute their judgment for that of the administrative agency.
• Doctrine of Regular Performance of Official Duty — Official acts are presumed to have been performed regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary; no ill-motive or bad faith was imputed to the investigating officer.

• "The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial investigation."
• "The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations."
• "The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service."
• "The principle is that when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government."

• Manuel, et al. vs. N.C. Construction Supply, et al. — Cited for the distinction that the constitutional right to counsel applies only to criminal custodial investigations, not administrative investigations.
• Lumiqued, et al. vs. Exevea, et al. — Cited to support that administrative bodies have no duty to furnish counsel to respondents in administrative inquiries irrespective of the nature of charges.
• Nera vs. Garcia, et al. — Cited as controlling precedent that dishonesty need not be committed in the course of duty to warrant dismissal from government service.
• Bautista vs. Negado, et al. — Cited for the principle that the object of disciplinary action is the improvement of public service and preservation of public faith, not punishment.
• Tiatco vs. CSC, et al. — Cited for the rule that findings of administrative bodies supported by substantial evidence are accorded finality.
• Paper Industries Corp. of the Phils. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary — Cited for the rule that reviewing courts do not weigh conflicting evidence or determine credibility in administrative appeals.
• Gelmart Industries (Phil.), Inc. vs. Leogardo, Jr., et al. — Cited for the discretion of administrative agencies to determine which party deserves credence based on evidence received.
• Cuerdo vs. Commission on Audit — Cited for the rule that courts will not interfere with administrative matters absent clear showing of arbitrary action or grave abuse of discretion.
• Torres, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. — Cited for the rule that under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, transmission of records to the Court of Appeals is discretionary.
• Regalado vs. Buena — Cited to emphasize that accountable officers in sensitive positions are held to strict standards regarding falsification of documents.
• Alawi vs. Alauva — Cited in reference to the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees promoting high standards of ethics in public service.

• Section 12, paragraphs 1 and 3, Article III of the 1987 Constitution — Provisions on the right to counsel and the exclusionary rule during custodial investigations; held inapplicable to administrative proceedings.
• Section 2(3), Article XI (B) of the 1987 Constitution — Provision that no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause; interpreted to include dishonesty even if not work-related.
• Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 — Classifies dishonesty as a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense.
• Section 32, Article VII of Republic Act No. 2260 (Civil Service Act) — Provision indicating that parties in administrative investigations may or may not be assisted by counsel.
• Section 39, paragraph 2, Rule XIV (on discipline) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 — Provision indicating respondents in administrative proceedings may opt to engage counsel but have no right to be furnished one.
• Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 — Rule granting the Court of Appeals discretion to require transmission of original records in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies.