Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CSC v. Belagan
CSC v. Belagan
CSC v. Belagan
Belagan 060
GR No. 132164, October 19, 2004, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
Digested by Pat • Law 126- Evidence
Magdalena filed a complaint for sexual indignities and harassment against RESP, the Superintendent of
DECS Baguio. The DECS ruled that Belagan is guilty and ordered his dismissal from service. CSC
affirmed. SC also affirmed and held that Belagan is guilty of grave misconduct but reduced the penalty to
suspension in view of the length of service of Belagan.
FACTS
• Magdalena, founder of a learning center, and Ligaya, a public school teacher filed
complaints against RESP DR. Belagan, Superintendent of DECS Baguio, charging him
with sexual indignities and harassment.1
o Magdalena alleged that she filed an application with the DECS for a permit to
operate a pre-school. When she and Belagan went to the school for inspection, the
latter suddenly placed his arms around her and kissed her cheek.
o Several days after, she went to DECS and asked Belagan about the application. The
latter replied “Mag-date muna tayo.”
• After investigation, DECS ruled that Belagan is guilty of 2 counts of sexual advances or
indignities against Magdalena. He was dismissed from service.
• CSC affirmed the DECS decision.
o Belagan’s transgression against Magdalena constitutes grave misconduct.
o Ordered the penalty of dismissal from service.
• BELAGAN filed an MR contending that he has never been charged of any offense in his
37 years of service.
o By contrast Magdalena was charged with several offenses before the MTC (22 various cases for
grave/ light oral defamation, slight physical injuries, malicious mischief, unjust vexation, light/grave
threats)
o Also, 24 complaints against her were filed with the Barangay Chairmen of 2 barangays for
defamation, habitual trouble maker, grave threats, demolition scandal, etc.
o Belagan claims that the numerous cases filed against Magdalena cast doubt on her character,
integrity, and credibility.
• CSC denied MR.
• CA reversed and dismissed the complaint ruling that Magdalena is an unreliable witness,
her character being questionable. Also considered the “unblemished” service record for 37
years of RESP Belagan.
1
I only included the facts relative to Magdalena’s complaint because Ligaya’s was dismissed by CSC and not
passed upon anymore by SC
ISSUES & HOLDING
(1) Whether the conduct of Belagan constituted grave misconduct- YES.
(2) Whether the penalty of dismissal is proper- NO.
RATIO
(1) Belagan is guilty of grave misconduct
a. Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law
or standard of behavior, especially by a government official.
i. To constitute an administrative offence, misconduct should relate to or be
connected with the functions and duties of a public officer.
b. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule,
must be manifest.
i. Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an
official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station
or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person,
contrary to duty and the rights of others.
c. CAB: RESP guilty of grave misconduct as his acts concern not only a stolen kiss
but also a demand for a “date”, an unlawful consideration for the issuance of a
permit to operate a pre-school.
The exception to the GR that character of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy
under Sec. 51 (a) (3), Rule 130 is not applicable in this case
• Firstly, that provision pertains only to criminal case, not to administrative offenses.
• Secondly, even assuming that the same can be applied here, character of Magdalena is
still inadmissible.
o Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under that provision.
Only those which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense charge: character
evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.
o In this case for sexual harassment, Belagan did not offer evidence bearing on Magdalena’s chastity.
What he presented are charges for grave oral defamation, grave threates, unjust vexation, physical
injuries, etc.
o Certainly, these pieces of evidence are inadmissible under the above provision because they do not
establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
DISPOSITIVE
Reversed. Petition granted. But RESP only suspended from service for 1 year in view of his 37
years of service.