Mollaneda v. Umacob
G.R. No. 140128
June 6, 2001
Article 3

FACTS:
Respondent Leonida Umacob filed against petitioner Arnold Mollaneda an affidavit-
complaint for sexual arassment !it te CSC" Se alleged tat !en se follo!ing up er
re#uest for transfer of assignment$ te Admin %fficer !as not present so it !as te petitioner !o
is te &ivision Superintendent$ !o received er re#uest" After teir meeting and !en
respondent !as about to leave$ it !as alleged tat te petitioner suddenl' embraced er$ ten e
(issed er nose and lip in a torrid manner" Respondent alleges tat se tried to resist but
 petitioner forcibl' eld er nec($ and ten e mased er left breast after!ic e !arned er
not to tell an'one" Te respondent claims tat se !as soc(ed$ and se onl' told a fello! &)CS
emplo'ee$ *enus Mariano$ about it" )ventuall' se filed te complaint !it &)CS in &avao$
!ic directed te formation of a committee to investigate"
+etitioner denied te allegations in is ans!er$ empasi,ing tat tere are material
contradictions in te narration of respondent" e contradicted te version of te respondent$
claiming tat respondent !as mad at im for te dela' in te transfer of te assignment$ and even
murmured before going out tat petitioner !ould regret is act of discrimination" .ased on te
!itnesses presented b' petitioner$ tere !as no act of sexual arassment tat occurred"
)ventuall' a prima facie case !as found against te petitioner$ and so te records of te case
!ere elevated to te CSC" Te commission designated Att'" .uena to ear and receive te
evidence in te case" +etitioner !as ten found guilt' of grave misconduct and conduct grossl'
 pre/udicial to te best interest of te service and ad to suffer dismissal" Fort!it$ petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration but !as denied so e filed !it te CA a petition for revie!$
claiming tat e !as denied due process and te commission erred in giving !eigt to earsa'
testimonies" CA toug affirmed te resolution$ ruling tat te matter of assigning values to
testimonies is best performed b' trial courts$ tribunals or administrative bodies !it #uasi-
 /udicial po!ers" Troug tis te' can observe te demeanor$ conduct and attitude of te
!itnesses$ tat is !' teir findings are respected" +etitioner did not so! an'ting to prove bias
or to prove tat te testimonies !ere falsified" +etitioner participated in pre-trial$ attended te
earing and cross-examined te !itnesses so e cannot invo(e violation of is rigt to due
 process"
0SSU)1S2:
3" 4eter or not te CA erred in rel'ing on te teor' tat te findings of #uasi-/udicial
agencies sould be given great !eigt"
5" 4eter or not te CA erred in giving credence to te 6earsa'7 testimonies of te
respondent8s !itnesses"
9" 4eter or not te petitioner can find solace in is ac#uittal in te criminal case"
)L&:

+repared b': o-Anne Colo#uio

 

3" ;o"
Te court ruled tat altoug CSC assigned Att'" .uena to ear and receive evidence$ it does
not render teir findings un!ort' of credence" Te trial court or te administrative bod' are te
triers of facts$ and te' are te ones in te best position to assess te demeanor$ conduct and
attitude of te !itnesses" Te appointment of competent officers to ear and receive evidence as
in te case of Att'" .uena is commonl' resorted to b' administrative bodies$ for a more efficient
disposition of cases" 0n fact te Administrative Code of 3<=> provides tat te Commission ma'
deputi,e an' department or agenc' or official or group of officials to conduct an investigation on
te complaint filed b' a private citi,en against a government official or emplo'ee" Te appointed
officer !ill ten investigate and report te facts$ on te basis of !ic te administrative bod'
can decide" &ue process of la! does not re#uire tat te actual ta(ing of testimon' be before te
same officer !o !ill ma(e te decision" As long as te part' is not deprived of is rigt to
 present is o!n case$ submit evidence to support is position$ and te decision is supported b'
te evidence$ te rigt to due process is not violated" %ne of te re#uirements of due process is
tat te tribunal or bod' or an' of its /udges must act on its or is o!n independent consideration
of te la! and facts of te controvers'$ and not simpl' accept te vie!s of a
subordinate" Terefore te bod' sall not merel' rel' on te recommendation but also consider a
 personal assessment of te facts" 0n te case at bar$ te Commission itself evaluated te evidence
of bot parties as reported b' Att'" .uena"
+etitioner also complains tat e !as not furnised a cop' of Att'" .uena8s notes and
recommendation" Te court rules tat in an administrative case te respondent is not entitled to
 be informed of te findings and recommendation of an' investigating committee" e is onl'
entitled to te decision based on substantial evidence made of record and a reasonable
opportunit' to meet te carges and te evidence presented against im" %nl' !en te part'
adversel' affected appeals to te CSC ma' is counsel be given a cop' of te report"
5" ;o"
A reading of te testimonies of Umacob and Mariano so!s tat te' !ere not presented to
 prove te trut of respondent?s accusations against petitioner$ but onl' to establis te fact tat
respondent narrated to tem !at transpired bet!een er and petitioner" 0t can be earsa' if te
testimon' intended to establis te trut of te facts asserted but in te case at bar it is different$
for te ma(ing of te statement is te one proved" Te petitioner !as given te cance to cross-
examine te !itnesses since e !as present during te earing"
9" ;o"
Te fact tat te petitioner !as dismissed in te criminal case does not preclude te court from
tr'ing te administrative case" Te rule is tat te dismissal of a criminal case against an accused
!o is a respondent in an administrative case on te ground of insufficienc' of evidence does not
foreclose te administrative proceeding against im$ and tis onl' re#uires substantial evidence"
And te evidence presented !as substantial enoug to /ustif' is dismissal"

+repared b': o-Anne Colo#uio