EN BANC

[G.R. No. 150732. August 31, 2004.]

TOMAS G. VELASQUEZ, Officer-In-Charge, Office of the

School Superintendent, DECS — Division of Abra; MARIETTA
BERSALONA, Chairperson, DECS — Fact Finding Committee;
EDUARDO RUPERTO, JOAQUIN PILIEN and LUZ CURBI,
Members, DECS — Fact Finding Committee, petitioners, vs.
HELEN B. HERNANDEZ, respondent.

[G.R. No. 151095. August 31, 2004.]

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. HELEN B.

HERNANDEZ, respondent.

DECISION

TINGA, J : p

Subject of the consolidated petitions is the Decision of the Court of

Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61081, entitled Helen B. Hernandez v. Tomas G .
Velasquez, promulgated on 07 November 2001. 1 The assailed Decision
annulled and set aside the twin resolutions issued by the Civil Service
Commission (CSC for brevity), in Administrative Case No. 97-45 filed against
respondent Hernandez. The CSC, in its Resolution No. 00-1375 dated 13 June
2000, found respondent Hernandez guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct
and ordered her dismissal from the service, with all the accessory penalties
including her perpetual disqualification from holding public office. In Resolution
No. 00-2064 dated 07 September 2000, the CSC denied respondent's motion for
reconsideration of Resolution No. 00-1375.
Stripped of non-essentials, the following are the factual antecedents:
In a letter dated 25 September 1996, the Assistant Schools Division
Superintendent of the DECS-CAR, (Cordillera Administrative Region) sent a
letter to petitioner (in G.R. No. 150732) Tomas G. Velasquez, informing him of
the alleged infractions committed by respondent, Helen B. Hernandez, such as
soliciting, accepting, and receiving sums of money, in exchange for transfer or
promotion of complainant teachers. Acting on the letter, petitioner Velasquez
convened a fact-finding committee to determine the veracity of the alleged
violations of respondent and to render a formal report and recommendation.
On 26 September 1996, the Committee composed of members assigned
at the DECS-Division of Abra, summoned to a meeting the teachers who have
grievances against respondent. Based on the sworn statements of the
teachers, namely: Elena Princena, Myrna Bayabos, Mildred Millare, Ofrina
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Benabese, Emilia Beralde, Ruby Bringas, Regina Potolin, spouses Ernesto
Callena, Jr. and Ma. Louisa Callena, Irene Bermudez, Francisco Castillo,
Elizabeth Castillo, Maribel Medrano, Benigna Bulda, Irenea Viado, Cecilia
Turqueza, Catherine Badere, Rosalinda Bilgera, Nardita Tuscano, Henry
Bisquera, Melba Linggayo, and Maritess Navarro, it appears that respondent
demanded and/or received money in various amounts from the teachers in
consideration of their appointment, promotion, and transfer from one school to
another.
On 15 November 1996, the Committee issued an Investigation Report
recommending the filing of administrative and criminal complaints against
respondent. On 14 March 1997, a formal charge for Grave Misconduct, Conduct
Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Abuse of Authority, and
Violation of Section 22(k) Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 and
other related laws was filed against respondent.
On 24 March 1997, respondent filed her Answer to the charges. In the
main, she contended that the charges are brazen fabrications and falsehoods
made by parties with ulterior motives which are designed to harass her in a
systematic campaign to discredit her. Respondent likewise alleged that the
preparation and taking of the statements of the supposed 23 counts of
irregularity leveled against her were attended by coercion and fraud. SEIDAC

Meanwhile, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Abra issued a

Resolution in I.S. No. 97-003 entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Helen
Hernandez, et al." This Resolution , which arose from the sworn complaints filed
by the complaining teachers, indicted respondent and a certain Luzviminda de
la Cruz for violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Resolution of the Provincial
Prosecutor was affirmed with modification by the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon in its Review Action dated 6 November 1997. Under the
modified indictment, respondent and dela Cruz were charged with direct
bribery. However, upon motion filed by respondent and her co-accused, the
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman in its Order dated 24 February 1998,
reconsidered and set aside its Review Action dated 6 November 1997, and
ordered the withdrawal of Informations for direct bribery filed against
respondent and de la Cruz.
After due proceedings, the CSC issued Resolution No. 00-1375, dated 13
June 2000, finding respondent guilty of the charges against her and ordering
her dismissal from the service. The motion for reconsideration filed by
respondent was denied by the CSC in its Resolution No. 00-2064 dated 7
September 2000.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals raising the following issues:
1) Whether or not the CSC erred in assuming jurisdiction
and/or in rendering judgment adverse to her;

2) Whether or not the CSC erred in rendering judgment

against her in violation of her right to due process in administrative
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
proceedings;

3) Whether or not the CSC erred in its appreciation of the

evidence on record and;

4) Whether or not the CSC erred in imposing the penalty of

dismissal. 2

The appellate court, in its now assailed Decision, reversed the resolutions
of the CSC. It opined that when petitioners filed a formal charge against
respondent, it was incumbent upon them to inform the Civil Service
Commission that another case was filed before the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon considering that the facts and circumstances from which
both complaints stem are the same. Citing Section 13(1) of Article XI of the
1987 Constitution, and Section 19 and 21 of Republic Act No. 6770, the
appellate court added that the CSC and the Office of the Ombudsman have
concurrent original jurisdiction over administrative cases filed against any
government employee. Thus, it ruled that the effects of res judicata or litis
pendentia may not be avoided by varying the designation of the parties,
changing the form of the action, or adopting a different mode of presenting
one's case.

Anent the issue of violation of respondent's right to due process, the

appellate court stressed that it is not enough that the twin requisites of notice
and hearing be present. It is important that the tribunal hearing the case must
be unbiased; indeed, if the government official or employee under investigation
is not afforded the opportunity to present his case before a fair, independent,
and impartial tribunal, the hearing would be futile. Considering that the
composition of the fact-finding Committee is in question, the appellate court
concluded that it cannot properly be said that there was a fair and impartial
hearing of the petitioner's case.

The appellate court also ruled that petitioner failed to discharge the
burden of proving by substantial evidence the averments of the complaint
because it appears that some affiants who executed sworn statements to
support the charges against respondent later retracted their statements and
executed new statements, alleging that they were merely induced to testify
against respondent. It also noted that some of the complaining teachers even
failed to appear in the investigation to confirm their respective sworn
statements. The appellate court, therefore, annulled and set aside the
Resolutions of the CSC and ordered the payment of backwages to respondent.
Separate appeals via petition for review were filed before this Court by
petitioner Velasquez, in his capacity as Officer-in Charge, Office of the School
Superintendent, DECS-Division of Abra (G.R. No. 150732) and the Civil Service
Commission (G.R. No. 151095), assailing the decision of the appellate court.
The two petitions were ordered consolidated in a Resolution of this Court dated
25 June 2002. G.R. No. 150732, assigned to the Third Division of this Court, was
ordered consolidated with G.R. No. 151095, an En Banc case even if the first
mentioned petition has a lower docket number considering that both cases
involve resolutions of the Civil Service Commission.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
The issues in both petitions are substantially the same.

In G.R. No. 150732, petitioner raised the following issues:

I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE

FORMAL CHARGE WHICH WAS FILED BY THE CSC AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT SHOULD CONTAIN A CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING. CcAHEI

II.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT

RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS WAS
VIOLATED.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT WAS INSUFFICIENT.
IV.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING THE

REINSTATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE PAYMENT OF HER
BACKWAGES. 3

On the other hand, the following issues were raised by the CSC in G.R. No.
151095:
I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE FORMAL CHARGE SHOULD CONTAIN A

CERTIFICATE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING;

II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CSC ERRED IN RENDERING JUDGMENT AGAINST
RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE LATTER'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS;
III.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CSC ERRED IN ITS APPRECIATION OF THE

EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND FINDING RESPONDENT GUILTY OF THE
OFFENSES CHARGED. 4

In both cases, petitioners asseverate that under Section 21 of the Uniform

Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigations (CSC
Resolution No. 99-1936, dated 31 August 1999), it is the complaint and the not
the formal charge which should contain a certification of non-forum shopping.
The Office of the Solicitor General strongly argues that the formal charge was
filed, not by the complaining teachers or the DECS Fact-Finding Committee, but
by the CSC-CAR and it would thus be unnecessary to require a certification of
non-forum shopping considering that the CSC is the sole arbiter of all contests
relating to the Civil Service and it would be absurd for the CSC-CAR to file the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
same administrative case against respondent in another forum. The OSG adds
that there was no need for the CSC-CAR to inform the CSC about the criminal
action for Direct Bribery in OMB-1-96-2757 because the said action was not
filed by the CSC-CAR.

The CSC on the other hand, argues that what was filed with the Office of
the Ombudsman is a criminal case and while the facts therein may be similar to
the pending administrative case, the Office of the Ombudsman and the CSC will
not rule on the same cause of action or grant the same relief. According to the
CSC, there is no possibility of having conflicting decisions as the two cases are
distinct from each other.

Petitioners dispute the Court of Appeals'’ finding that respondent's right to

administrative due process was violated. Respondent can hardly be said to
have been deprived of due process as she was given the chance to answer the
charges, to submit countervailing evidence, and to cross-examine the witnesses
against her. The mere fact that respondent questioned the impartiality of the
fact finding committee will not automatically result in a denial of due process
because what matters is that respondent had actively participated in the
proceedings against her. Petitioners add that respondent's culpability was not
based solely on the report of the fact-finding committee, but also on the
evidence submitted by the respondent which, unfortunately, was found
wanting.

Succinctly, petitioners argue that the appellate court erred in holding that
the evidence they presented to establish the culpability of the respondent is
insufficient. The finding is based merely on the retraction of the sworn
statements of some three teachers and the failure of three others to appear
during the formal investigation. Petitioners stress that a majority of the
complainant teachers remained consistent in their claim that respondent
actually and directly received from them various amounts of money in
exchange for their appointment, promotion, or transfer. They add that the
dismissal of the criminal action against respondent in OMB-1-96-2757 cannot
be treated as a bar to the administrative case primarily because administrative
liability is distinct from penal liability. In conclusion, petitioners fault the
appellate court for reversing the factual findings of the CSC, ordering the
reinstatement of respondent, and awarding backwages in her favor.
Upon the other hand, respondent would have the Court sustain the
Decision of the appellate court exonerating her of all the charges in the
administrative case. Citing CSC Resolution No. 95-3099, respondent argues
that even on the assumption that a certificate of non-forum shopping is not
necessary in the formal charge, petitioners nevertheless failed to show that the
complaint filed by the teachers contained the required certification of non-
forum shopping. She theorizes that since it is the CSC-CAR which filed the
formal charge against her, it would be difficult to imagine that the CSC will
make a turn around and take a position contrary to its earlier findings that a
prima facie case against her exists. Respondent insists that to allow the CSC to
exercise jurisdiction over the case would be similar to allowing one person to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
act as prosecutor and judge at the same time. EaScHT

In support of the appellate court's Decision, respondent maintains that it

correctly ruled that there was no fair and impartial hearing of her case before
the fact-finding committee. She contends that the integrity of the fact-finding
committee is questionable considering that the chairperson of the committee is
a relative of one of the complainant teachers, Ms. Immaculada Bringas, who
incidentally would be the next in rank if she is ousted from her position. Finally,
she adds that petitioners are urging this Court to review the factual findings of
the appellate court which cannot be done in the instant petition which must
raise only questions of law.

The Court rules for the petitioners.

CSC Resolution No. 95-3099 dated 9 May 1995 (Further Amended by CSC
Resolution No. 99-1936, dated 31 August 1999), amending Section 4 of CSC
Resolution No. 94-0521, Series of 1994, provides:
"Section 4. Complaint in Writing and Under Oath . — No
complaint against a civil servant shall be given due course, unless the
same is in writing and under oath.
The complaint should be written in a clear, simple and concise
language and in a systematic manner as to apprise the civil servant
concerned of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and
to enable him to intelligently prepare his defense or answer.
The complaint shall also contain the following:
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...

(d) a statement that no other administrative action or

complaint against the same party involving the same acts or
omissions and issues, has been filed before another agency or
administrative tribunal. In the absence of any one of the
requirements therein stated, the complaint shall be dismissed.
(Emphasis supplied)

The appellate court placed much reliance on the above-quoted provision

of CSC Resolution No. 95-3099 in relation to Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, when it ruled that it was incumbent upon petitioner (in G.R.
No. 150732) to inform that another case was filed before the Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Strikingly, the appellate court failed to state in
its Decision the person or entity which petitioner must notify of the pending
case with the Ombudsman. The appellate court then cited a litany of cases on
forum shopping and concluded that petitioner's failure to state in the formal
charge that there is no other action or complaint pending against herein
respondent constitutes a violation of the rule against forum shopping that
merited the dismissal of the complaint. It ratiocinated that since the facts and
circumstances from which both complaints stem from are the same, petitioners
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
should have attached in their complaint the certificate of non-forum shopping.
Inconsistently, however, the appellate court was quick to add that the cause of
action in the CSC and the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman are distinct;
nevertheless, it said that in order to obviate the risk of violating the rule,
petitioners should have attached the certification against non-forum shopping.
The Court finds the above disquisition unsound.
Forum shopping consists of filing of multiple suits involving the same
parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for
the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. 5 It may also consist in a party
against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking
another and possibly favorable opinion in another forum other than by appeal
or special civil action of certiorari. 6
The most important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping
is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks
different courts to rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs. A party, however, cannot be said to have sought
to improve his chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action where no
unfavorable decision has ever been rendered against him in any of the cases he
has brought before the courts. 7

In not a few cases, this Court has laid down the yardstick to determine
whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping as where the
elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case
will amount to res judicata in the other. 8 Stated differently, there must be
between the two cases (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and
reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) that the
identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in
the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the action under consideration. 9
It is significant to note that the action filed before the CSC-CAR is
administrative in nature, dealing as it does with the proper administrative
liability, if any, which may have been incurred by respondent for the
commission of the acts complained of. In stark contrast, the case filed before
the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, which incidentally was not
initiated by herein petitioners but by the complainant teachers, deals with the
criminal accountability of the respondent for violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. Unmistakably, the rule on forum shopping would find no
proper application since the two cases although based on the same essential
facts and circumstances do not raise identical causes of action and issues. 10 It
would, therefore, be absurd to require the certification of forum shopping to be
attached to the formal charge filed before the CSC, for the evil sought to be
curbed by the proscription against forum shopping is simply not extant in the
instant case. ECaHSI

On the issue of her having been denied administrative due process, the
Court likewise finds respondent's claim untenable.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
The essence of due process is that a party be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of
his defense or simply an opportunity to be heard; 11 or as applied to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action of ruling complained of. 12 One may be heard, not solely by verbal
presentation but also, and perhaps even many times more creditably than oral
argument, through pleadings. Technical rules of procedure and evidence are
not even strictly applied to administrative proceedings, and administrative due
process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense. 13
In fact in Pefianco v. Moral, 14 the Court had the occasion to rule that a
respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the
findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to
inquire into charges filed against him — he is entitled only to the administrative
decision based on substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable
opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented against him
during the hearing of the investigation committee. It is the administrative
resolution, not the investigation report, which should be the basis of any further
remedies that the losing party in an administrative case might wish to pursue.

Respondent had been amply accorded the opportunity to be heard. She

was required to answer the formal charge against her and given the chance to
present evidence in her behalf. She actively participated in the proceedings and
even cross-examined the witnesses against her. Clearly, based on the above
jurisprudential pronouncements the appellate court's finding that respondent
was denied due process is utterly without basis.
Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial evidence
rule." 15 A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained
for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has
committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge. As defined,
substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 16 This is different from the
quantum of proof required in criminal proceedings which necessitates a finding
of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Ombudsman, in ordering
the withdrawal of the criminal complaints against respondent was simply
saying that there is no evidence sufficient to establish her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt which is a condition sine qua non for conviction. Ergo, the
dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose administrative action against
respondent.
In the instant case, this Court is of the view that the sworn complaints of
the twenty remaining complainants coupled with their positive testimonies in
the proceedings below, more than adequately complies with the standard of
proof required in administrative cases. The desistance executed by three (3)
out of the twenty-three (23) original complainants is of no moment since
administrative actions cannot be made to depend upon the will of every
complainant who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act. 17
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
All told, the Court holds that respondent's guilt in the administrative case
has been sufficiently established and pursuant to existing Civil Service Rules
and Regulations, 18 her dismissal from the service is warranted.
WHEREFORE, the instant consolidated petitions are hereby GRANTED. The
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Costs against the respondent.

SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Chico-Nazario, JJ ., concur.
Puno, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ ., are on official
leave.

Footnotes

1. Penned by Justice Teodoro P. Regino, concurred in by Justices Eugenio S.

Labitoria and Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, Seventh Division. Rollo , pp. 41–57.
2. Id. at 46.
3. Rollo , pp. 21–22.
4. Rollo , p. 15.
5. Leyson, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 134990, April 27, 2000, 331
SCRA 227.
6. Bangko Silangan Development Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110480,
June 29, 2001, 360 SCRA 322; Philippine Economic Zone Authority v.
Vianzon, G.R. No. 131020, July 20, 2000, 336 SCRA 309; Progressive
Development Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123555, January
22, 1999, 301 SCRA 637.
7. Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 207.
8. Manalo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141297, October 8, 2001, 366 SCRA
752; United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on the
Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 135945, March 7, 2001, 353 SCRA
782; Ayala Land, Inc. v. Valisno, G.R. No. 135899, February 2, 2000, 324
SCRA 522; Saura v. Saura, Jr. G.R. No. 136159, September 1, 1999, 313 SCRA
465; Prubrankers Association v. Prudential Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No.
131247, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 74.
9. Benedicto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001, 364
SCRA 334.
10. Yulienco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131692, June 10, 1999, 308 SCRA
206.
11. Pilipinas Loan Company, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission , G.R.
No. 104720, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 193; Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 4th Division, G.R. No. 115785, August 4, 2000,
337 SCRA 286; Orola v. Alovera, G.R. No. 111074, July 14, 2000, 335 SCRA
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
609; Tubiano v. Razo, G.R. No. 132598, July 13, 2000, 335 SCRA 531;
National Police Commission v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 129914, May 12, 2000, 332
SCRA 74.
12. Adiong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136480, December 4, 2001, 371 SCRA
373; Vda. de Dela Cruz, et al. v. Abille, G.R. No. 130196, February 26, 2001,
352 SCRA 691 (2001).
13. Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 114683, January 18, 2000,
322 SCRA 17.
14. G.R. No. 132248, January 19, 2000, 322 SCRA 439.
15. Ocampo v. Ombudsman, supra, note 13.
16. Western Shipyard Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110340, May
28, 2001, 358 SCRA 257; San Juan, Jr. v. Sangalang, Adm. Matter No. P-00-
1437, February 6, 2001, 351 SCRA 210.
17. Agulan, Jr. v. Fernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1354, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA
162.
18. Section 52, (A)(1)(3), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
in the Civil Service in relation to Section 22(k), Rule IV, Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com