University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Aurora L. Buizon, Chief of the Records and Management Section, was charged with dishonesty for allegedly causing the assessment of tuition fee discounts and scholarship grants for four relatives who were not recipients. A second charge for grave misconduct, acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and dishonesty was filed for causing the preparation of a false certified true copy of grades for Fernando B. Manicad, a relative, enabling his graduation without fulfilling all requirements. Procedural History: The administrative charges were consolidated. The University's Administrative and Investigation Committee recommended a one-year suspension. However, the President of the University of the Philippines dismissed Buizon from service with forfeiture of all retirement and other benefits. The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed Buizon's guilt but modified the penalty to resignation without prejudice to claiming benefits. The Civil Service Commission affirmed the Board's decision. The Petition: The University of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari, questioning the Civil Service Commission's resolution for allegedly acting with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Civil Service Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board which considered private respondent as resigned from the service without forfeiture of her retirement and other benefits; and whether the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits imposed by the President of the University of the Philippines was the appropriate penalty.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The resolution of the Civil Service Commission is reversed and set aside. The decision of the President of the University of the Philippines dismissing private respondent from office with forfeiture of her retirement and other benefits and privileges is reinstated and affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the appropriateness of the penalty: The Court agreed with the petitioner that the respondent Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion. The nature, number, and gravity of the acts committed by the respondent, sustained over a number of years, dictated the severest penalty. These acts made a travesty of the standards and integrity of the University and defrauded it. Allowing the respondent to claim retirement and other benefits would, in effect, reward rather than punish the erring employee. Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 30, S. 1989, mandates that dismissal carries with it the forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits. The respondent Commission failed to consider that the private respondent committed a series of deliberate acts over several years, which were of the gravest character. Her defense of good faith was found unmeritorious. Her length of service could not be a mitigating circumstance, as it was through her position and trust that she illicitly granted privileges and an unwarranted diploma. Furthermore, her acts constitute gross transgressions of penal laws, including violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and falsification of a public document, crimes involving moral turpitude. The number and nature of the aggravating circumstances far outweighed any potential mitigating factor, such as length of service. Therefore, the Commission's decision to allow forfeiture of benefits was a grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying the penalty of dismissal to resignation without forfeiture of benefits, considering the gravity and number of offenses committed, which strike at the integrity of the university and constitute gross transgressions of penal laws.