The complaint of Mr. Castro stemmed from an incident that happened on August 15, 1997 at 2:30 p.m. inside the school premises involving Mr. Garcia, Head Teacher III in the High School Department. Garcia was then about to leave the school premises but Castro said something that allegedly embarrassed him in front of students. When Garcia confronted Castro, the latter just turned his back and proceeded to his office. Garcia followed Castro inside, and then and there boxed Castro on the head, left eye, left eyebrow and lower lip. Aside from a criminal complaint for assault upon a person in authority filed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Castro filed a letter complaint with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), on October 29, 1997 asking CHED to discipline Garcia for mauling him. He attached to his letter the criminal complaint he filed under oath with the MTC together with the sworn statements of his witnesses.
Acting thereon, the CHED referred the matter to Atty. Diego, the Officer in Charge of its Legal Affairs Service Office (LASO) for fact finding investigation. Thereafter, Atty. Diego found a prima facie case against Garcia for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and issued a formal charge as well as an order of preventive suspension dated July 27, 1998. On February 29, 1999 however, the newly appointed Director of LASO, Atty. Villa, who took over from Atty. Diego, dismissed the administrative case on the ground that the letter-complaint of Castro was not under oath. Was the dismissal correct?
No. While the letter-complaint of Castro was not concededly verified, appended thereto were the verified criminal complaint he filed against Garcia and the sworn statements of his witnesses. These documents could very well be considered as constituting the complaint against Garcia. Indeed, it is not totally uncommon that a government agency is given wide latitude in the scope and exercise of its investigative powers. After all in administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. In fact the Court Administrator investigates and takes cognizance of, not only unverified complaints but also even anonymous complaints filed against court employees or officials for violations of the Code of Ethical Conduct.
In any case the letter-complaint of Castro is not the "complaint" within the purview of E.O. No. 292 and CSC rules on administrative cases. The "complaint" therein refers to the actual charge to which a person complained of is required to answer and to signify whether or not he elects a formal investigation should his answer be deemed not safisfactory. In this case the letter complaint did not by itself, commenced the administrative proceedings against Garcia requiring an answer from him, but merely triggered a fact finding investigation by the CHED. Said letter complaint cannot therefore be considered as "inexistent" merely because it is not under oath, for to do so would result in an absurd and restrictive interpretation of E.O. 292 and effectively deprive the Government of its disciplining power over people who hold a public trust.
In this case it was the formal charge and the order of preventive suspension against Garcia filed by Atty. Diego, the then Officer in Charge of CHED’s LASO for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and directing him to submit his answer in writing and under oath that constituted the complaint. Notably the LASO director signed the formal charge and order of suspension "for the Commission". As the complaint was initiated by the appropriate disciplining authority, the CHED through Atty. Diego, the same need not be subscribed and sworn to and jurisdiction was properly acquired over the case (Gaoiran vs. Alcala et. al. G.R. No. 150178 November 26, 2004).