Civil Service Commission vs. Jose Lucas
Facts: On May May 26 26,, 19 1992 92,, Raqu Raquel el P. Lina Linato tok, k, an assi assist stan antt info inform rmat atio ion n offi office cerr at the the Agricultural Information Division, Department of Agriculture (DA for brevity), filed with the office of the Secretary, DA, an affidavit-complaint against respondent Jose J. Lucas, a photographer of the same agency, for misconduct. Based on the description of the petitioner, while she was standing before a mirror, near the office door of Jose Lucas, she noticed a chair at her right side which Mr. Lucas sit at that very instant. Thereafter, Mr. Lucas bent to reach for his shoe, and at that moment she felt Mr. Lucas hand touching her thigh and running down his palm palm up to her her ankl ankle. e. She She was was shoc shocke ked d and and sudd sudden enly ly face faced d Mr. Mr. Lu Luca cas s and and admonished him not to do it again or she will kick him. But Mr. Lucas touched her again and so she hit him. A verbal exchange then ensued; she was thrown out of the door, and was told never to enter the office again. On June 8, 1992, the Board of Personnel Inquiry of DA issued a summons requiring the respondent to answer the complaint. According to Lucas, he did not touch the thigh of the complainant and what happened was that he accidentally brushed complainant’s complainant’s leg while reaching for his shoe. After a formal investigation, respondent was found guilty of simple misconduct with a penalty of suspension for 1 month and 1 day. In due due time time,, resp respon onde dent nt brou brough ghtt his his case case to the the Civi Civill Serv Servic ice e Comm Commis issi sion on.. There Thereaft after, er, the CSC iss issued ued a resolu resolutio tion n findi finding ng the respon responden dentt guilty guilty of grave grave misc miscon ondu duct ct and and impo imposi sing ng on him him a pena penalt lty y of dism dismis issa sall from from the the serv servic ice. e. Respondent moved for reconsideration, but was denied. Then, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA set aside the resolution of the CSC and reinstated the resolution of BOPI of DA. The CA further assailed that the the resp respon onde dent nt was was not not give given n due due proc proces ess s as he was was not not info inform rmed ed of the the modif modifica icatio tion n of the charg charge e agains againstt him, him, the dis distin tincti ctions ons of simpl simple e and grave grave misconduct. He only came to know of the changes when he received the notice of the resolution dismissing him from service. Issues: 1. WON respon responden dentt Lu Lucas cas was denied denied due process process when when the CSC found found him guilty of grave misconduct on a charge of simple misconduct. 2. WON the act act complained complained of of constitut constitutes es grave misco misconduc nduct. t. Held:
1. The SC sustained the ruling of the CA that the basic requirement of due process is that a person must be duly informed of the charges against him, and that a person cannot be convicted of a crime which he was not charged. Administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process in investigations and hearings. 2. Under the circumstances, the act of the respondent is not constitutive of grave misconduct, in the absence of proof that respondent was maliciously motivated. It has also been noted that the respondent has been in the service for 20 years and this is his first offense.
By: rgl
