Balasbas v. Monayao (G.R. No. 190524; February 17, 2014)
FACTS: Petitioner Atty. Michaelina Ramos Balasbas filed with the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) a letter-complaint, accusing respondent Patricia B. Monayao, then employed by the DSWD of misrepresentation, fraud, dishonesty and refusal to implement an Orderissued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in a land dispute filed sometime in 1987 by petitioners brother against respondents father.
In a letter-reply,the DSWD informed petitioner that respondent was no longer an employee thereof, but was devolved in 1992 to the local government of the municipality of Alfonso Lista in Ifugao Province. Petitioner was thus advised to address her complaint to the Office of the Mayor of Alfonso Lista - Mayor Glenn D. Prudenciano. When a letter complaint was filed, the Mayor refused to take action on the complaint because the acts complained of against respondent were not in relation to the latters duties and responsibilities as Municipal Population Officer.
Petitioner wrote a letterto the CSC claiming that the actions of respondent violated the civil service laws and amounted to grave misconduct and immorality.
The CSC-OLA (Office for Legal Affairs) held that the CSC had no jurisdiction over petitioners complaint as it stemmed from a private transaction between the protagonists; petitioners remedy was instead to seek execution of the DENRs Decision in H.A. NRD, 11-15-004 (E-11-16-004).
The CSC issued Resolution No. 080059 dismissing the appeal for want of merit. Accordingly, the opinion of the Office for Legal Affairs is affirmed.
In a Petition for Reviewfiled with the CA, petitioner questioned CSC Resolution No. 080059 and prayed that the CSC be ordered to assume jurisdiction over her complaint against respondent.
The CA held that none of the circumstances mentioned in Section 46, Chapter 7, Book V, of Executive Order No. 292 (EO 292), or the Administrative Code of 1987, is present in petitioners case, and that her main complaint against respondent pertains to the latters refusal to abide by the DENR judgment relative to the one-half portion of the property in dispute, which is not connected with or related to her position or performance of her functions as a public official. The appellate court added that while it is true that disciplinary action may be imposed for acts or omissions not connected with a public officer or employees official functions or responsibilities, such as dishonesty or immorality, the act complained of even if true does not reflect on the moral fitness and integrity of the respondent which may affect her right to continue in office.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,but the CA denied the same. Hence, petitioner instituted the present Petition for Review.
ISSUE:
Did the CA err when it sustained the decision of the CSC in finding that the acts and omissions of respondent, arising out of her private transactions, do not constitute administrative offenses which the said Commission could take cognizance and do not reflect on her moral fitness and integrity as a public servant?
HELD: Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to ones office or connected with the performance of his duty. It implies a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness and straightforwardness.
On the other hand, misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action, is a forbidden act, is a dereliction of duty, is willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.
Without a doubt, respondents supposed dishonest acts and misrepresentations committed in relation to a land dispute arising from her private dealings cast doubt on her fitness to discharge her responsibilities as a public official. If it is true that respondent caused the execution of a forged or falsified deed of sale in 1992 in order to transfer the disputed portion of the property to her children, then she committed a dishonest act even as she is enjoined to adhere at all times to law, morality, and decency in her private and professional life.
"Dishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty" by the public officer, for it "inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service."Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, 414 Phil. 590
Indeed, at the very least, the acts complained of constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, an administrative offense which need not be related to respondents official functions.
It is evident that she offered nothing more than bare imputations against the respondent. Though she claims that respondent falsified a 1992 deed of sale whereby the disputed portion was transferred to her children, the deed of sale was never shown; a copy thereof was never attached to petitioners complaints and other papers or pleadings. And if it is true that respondents children were able to secure title to the disputed portion in their name through such falsified deed of sale, then petitioner could have simply attached a copy of the new title issued in their name. But she did not.
Petitioner is a lawyer; she should know that as the complainant in the administrative case, upon her lies the burden of proof to establish her cause of action against the respondent. All that is required is substantial evidence, yet she could produce none; the allegations in her complaint are not duly supported by necessary documents that would demonstrate the justness of her claims.
Thus, in the eyes of the law, respondent committed as yet no visible wrong. The CSC and the CA may not be faulted for deciding the way they did. From her numerous complaints alone, it can be seen that she had no cause of action against the respondent, for her accusations were not supported by the required documentary evidence that should have been readily available to her, given that it consists of public documents which may be inspected and reproduced by permission from the government offices having custody thereof.
The Court therefore sees no reason to disturb the findings of the CSC and the CA. Moreover, their conclusion - to the effect that what remains to be done is to cause the execution of the DENR Order in H.A. NRD, 11-15-004 (E-11-16-004) - is correct, and this may be achieved in the same administrative case or by filing a proper case in court.
