Remolona v. CSC | G.R. No. 137473 | August 2, 2001 | J.

Puno

Petitioner: Estelito V. Remolona

Respondent: Civil Service Commission (CSC)
Topic: Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of Standards

Summary: Mr. Remolona was dismissed by the CSC because he acquired a fake eligibility for his wife.
The court ruled that the findings of the administrative body was binding on them. The general rule is
that findings of the administrative body which are amply supported by substantial evidence are
accorded not only respect but also finality, and are binding on the Court. However, the court may take
cognizance if there is a clear showing that the agency acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion
or when they have acted in a capricious and whimsical manner such that their action may amount to an
excess of jurisdiction, then

FACTS:

 America (District Supervisor of DEP-ED Culture and Sports) inquired from the CSC as to the
status of eligibility of Mrs. Remolona, an elementary teacher. America also disclosed that Mrs.
Remolona asked for an P8,000 fee per examinee to pass them in the teacher’s board exams.
 Upon Order of CSC Chairman, CSC Region IV Director Pasion conducted an investigation and
found that Mrs. Remolona was not in the name of the examinees and that her Examination
Number belonged to someone else
 A preliminary investigation was conducted, but only Mrs. Remolona’s husband appeared.
o He signed the following written statement of facts:
 When his wife was having difficulty in acquiring eligibility, he met a certain Atty.
Salupadin, who offered his help for a fee of P3,000
 He was given a fake Report of Rating with a passing grade
o Furthermore, he also admitted that he was responsible in acquiring the fake eligibility
and that his wife had no knowledge thereof, and that he did it because he wanted them
to be together
 Director Pasion thus recommended the filing of the appropriate administrative action against
Mr. Remolona
 A formal charge was filed against Mr. and Mrs. Remolona, as well as Atty. Salupadin, for
possession of fake eligibility, falsification, and dishonesty
o A formal hearing thus ensued leading to a recommendation by the Regional Director
that the spouses be found guilty
 CSC adopted the RD’s recommendation, and issued a Resolution finding the spouses guilty of
dishonesty and imposing a penalty of dismissal
 Upon MR, the CSC modified the Resolution by absolving Mrs. Remolona.
 Appeal to CA: Dismissed the petition, affirmed CSC.

WON there was a violation of Mr. Remolona’s right to due process—NO

Mr. Remolona: Right to due process was violated because 1) he was not assisted by counsel during the
preliminary investigation 2) extra-judicial admission is inadmissible because he was merely made to sign
a blank form

1. In administrative investigations, the party may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of
the nature of the charges and of the respondent’s capacity to represent himself.
a. This right to counsel is not imperative in admin investigations because such inquiries are
conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measure
against erring public officers and employees. Thus, this hearing is not part of a criminal
prosecution
b. In the case at bar, Remolona was not accused of any crime, and the investigation was
conducted simply for the purpose of ascertaining facts
2. The Supreme Court did not give any credence to Remolona’s allegations that he was made to
sign a blank paper because, since he occupied a high position in the government as Postmaster,
he is expected to be circumspect in his actions specially where he is being administratively
charged

[Relevant Issue] WON a civil service employee can be dismissed from government service for an
offense which is not work-related or which is not connected with the performance of his official duty
—YES

Remolona invokes Section 2(3), Article XI (B). He claims that although the offense of dishonesty is
punishable under the Civil Service Law, such an act must have been committed in the performance of his
function and duty as Postmaster.

1. Dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense under
Section 23, Rule XIV of the IRR of EO 292. The rule is that dishonesty, in order to warrant
dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty by the person
charged.
a. 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
b. Because by reason of one’s office s/he 1) is given more and ample opportunity to
commit the same acts against his/her fellow men, and s/he possesses a certain influence
and power
c. 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

WON the findings of the CSC are binding upon the court—YES

1. General rule: findings of the administrative body which are amply supported by substantial
evidence are accorded not only respect but also finality, and are binding on the Court
 a. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the
credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the
administrative agency on the sufficiency of evidence.
b. When conflicting versions of facts arise, it is the admin agency which deserves
credence on the basis of the evidence it receives
2. Exception: If there is a clear showing that the agency acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion or when they have acted in a capricious and whimsical manner such that their
action may amount to an excess of jurisdiction
3. In the case at bar, there is no compelling reason to deviate from the findings of the CSC and the
CA
a. Written admission is complete with details
b. No ill motive was ever imputed to Director Pasion
c. Presumption that official duty has been regularly performed remains unrebutted

WON the motion for new trial should be granted—NO

Remolona: The motion should be granted because the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the
hearing of the case before the Regional Office of the CSC was not forwarded to the Court of Appeals

 The transmittal of the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the formal hearing before
the CSC is entirely a matter of discretion on the part of the CA (Revised Administrative Circular
No. 1-95)

Disposition: The petition is partially granted. Section 1 of the Wage Order is declared VALID insofar as
the mandated increase applies to employees earning the prevailing minimum wage rate at the time of
the passage of the Wage Order and VOID with respect to its application to employees receiving more
than the prevailing minimum wage rate at the time of the passage of the Wage Order.