Lolita Dadubo v. Civil Service Commission and the Development Bank of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Lolita A. Dadubo and Rosario B. Cidro, employees of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Borongan Branch, were administratively charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges stemmed from reports of an unposted withdrawal of P60,000.00 from the savings account of the Tiu family. On August 13, 1987, Erlinda Veloso, authorized representative of the Tius, presented a withdrawal slip for P60,000.00. Dadubo, as acting teller, prepared the necessary documents, which were processed and approved, and the amount was disbursed to Veloso. Later that day, a second withdrawal slip for P60,000.00 was presented by Feliciano Bugtas, Jr., another employee of the Tius. This withdrawal was processed and approved, but no posting was made as the passbook was not presented. The following day, August 14, 1987, Veloso presented a third withdrawal slip for P60,000.00. While Dadubo claimed to have disbursed P100,000.00 to Veloso, covering this withdrawal and a subsequent P40,000.00 withdrawal, Veloso testified she only received P40,000.00, leaving P60,000.00 unaccounted for and imputable to Dadubo. Procedural History: DBP found Dadubo guilty of dishonesty for embezzlement and dismissed her. Cidro was found guilty of gross neglect of duty and fined. Dadubo appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which affirmed DBP's decision. However, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) reversed DBP, reducing Dadubo's penalty to a six-month suspension, citing that while Dadubo altered dates on the ledger, the bank was defrauded due to an After Banking Hours (ABH) withdrawal for which Cidro was responsible. The CSC also noted that Dadubo reported the irreconcilable P60,000.00 and that her charge should be willful violation of office regulation for accessing ledger cards, which tellers are not allowed to do. Upon DBP's motion for reconsideration, the CSC, in Resolution No. 92-878, affirmed Dadubo's guilt, treating her admission of altering ledger dates as a mitigating circumstance offset by the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of her official position, and concluding she manipulated records to conceal the offense. The Petition: Dadubo filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that CSC Resolution No. 92-878 failed to comply with the constitutional requirement to state clearly and distinctly the facts and law, conflicted with CSC Resolution No. 91-642, overlooked relevant facts, and based its conclusions on speculation. The Solicitor General argued that the CSC resolution did not need to restate the bases of the original decision, as Dadubo's admission of altering dates, despite being unauthorized, proved her guilt.
Issue(s)
Whether CSC Resolution No. 92-878 failed to comply with the constitutional requirement to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it was based. Whether CSC Resolution No. 92-878 conflicted with the findings of fact in CSC Resolution No. 91-642; Whether the Civil Service Commission manifestly overlooked or disregarded certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties; Whether the Civil Service Commission based its conclusions entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures. Whether petitioner was denied due process. Whether the charge of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the bank sufficiently covered the offense of embezzlement; On the appreciation of evidence and admissibility of affidavits.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Civil Service Commission in issuing the questioned resolutions. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutional requirement for decisions to state facts and law: The Court held that the constitutional requirement for decisions to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which they are based applies only to courts of justice, not to administrative bodies like the Civil Service Commission. Furthermore, the Court noted that the MSPB decision, which affirmed DBP's decision, had already clearly stated the facts and law. Even resolutions issued to resolve a motion for reconsideration, like CSC Resolution No. 92-878, are not strictly required to re-state all factual and legal bases, especially when the reasoning was extensively discussed in prior decisions. On conflict with prior CSC findings and overlooking facts: The Court found no conflict between CSC Resolution No. 92-878 and CSC Resolution No. 91-642. Resolution No. 91-642 reduced the penalty, but Resolution No. 92-878, in resolving the motion for reconsideration, affirmed the guilt of Dadubo, treating her admission of altering dates as a mitigating circumstance offset by aggravating circumstances. The Court also found no evidence that the CSC manifestly overlooked or disregarded relevant facts or based its conclusions on speculation. The findings of administrative bodies, when supported by substantial evidence, are controlling on reviewing authorities. On due process: The Court dismissed the petitioner's invocation of due process, stating that she had multiple opportunities to be heard and present her case. She testified at her formal investigation, filed a motion for reconsideration with DBP, appealed to the MSPB, and elevated the case to the CSC. Having availed of these opportunities, she could not claim denial of due process. The standard of due process in administrative tribunals allows for a certain latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. On the charge of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the bank: The Court ruled that even though Dadubo was formally charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the bank and not specifically with embezzlement, the allegations and evidence presented sufficiently proved her guilt of embezzlement. The Court reiterated that the charge in an administrative case need not be drafted with the precision of a criminal information; what is controlling is the substance of the charge and the acts complained of, not the designation of the offense. On the appreciation of evidence and admissibility of affidavits: The Court emphasized that the appreciation of evidence is the prerogative of the administrative body, subject to reversal only upon a clear showing of arbitrariness. The rejection of the affidavit of Albert C. Ballicud was deemed proper because the document did not show that the petitioner did not embezzle the P60,000.00. The Court also noted that the Solicitor General argued that Ballicud's affidavit was inadmissible because he was never subjected to cross-examination.
Main Doctrine
Administrative charges need not be drafted with the precision of a criminal information; the substance of the charge and the acts complained of are controlling, not the designation of the offense. Findings of fact of administrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on reviewing authorities, and such decisions can only be set aside upon proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law. The constitutional requirement for decisions to state clearly and distinctly the facts and law applies only to courts of justice, not to administrative bodies.