Misconduct

This is another case demonstrating the lack of due process in the disciplinary action rendered against a civil service employee. This is the case of Manny.

Manny was a Utility Foreman of the Department of Health assigned to the Ilocos Regional Hospital (IRH), San Fernando, La Union.

In April 1996, the Hospital Credentials Committee of the IRH conducted a meeting for the purpose of assessing the performance of the hospital personnel. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee recommended that Manny be demoted from his position as Utility Foreman to Utility Worker I.

The recommendation was then forwarded to Mr. Rosal, the Chief of Hospital. Acting on the recommendation, Rosal issued an appointment to Manny demoting him to the lower position of Utility Worker I with corresponding reduction in pay.

Such action of Rosal prompted Manny to file a complaint with the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSC) against Rosal, the Personnel Officer Lina and the Payroll Master, Danny for dishonesty, grave misconduct, falsification of public document and oppression.

After Rosal and Lina filed their answer and Danny filed his affidavit, the CSC Regional Office conducted a formal investigation during which the parties presented their respective evidence. In the course of the proceedings, Manny withdrew his complaint against Danny.

On July 2, 1998 the hearing officer dismissed the charges against Rosal and Lina because it found that there was no sufficient evidence against them. But when the report of the hearing officer as approved by the CSC Regional Director was forwarded to the CSC Central Office, the CSC issued a resolution on October 30, 1998 sustaining the hearing officer as far as Lina is concerned but found Rosal guilty of simple misconduct only. The CSC said that Rosal’s act of demoting Manny was done in violation of the latter’s right to due process of law because he was not formally charged and no investigation was conducted to afford him the opportunity to air his side. So Rosal was meted a fine equivalent to three months salary.

Rosal questioned this decision of the CSC. He contended that as Chief of Hospital, he exercises direct control and supervision over all subordinate officers and employees that require the use of discretion which should be respected if it is not used in an abusive, whimsical and oppressive manner. And it cannot be said that his demotion of Manny is whimsical and oppressive because the same was based on the recommendation of the hospital’s credentials committee. Was Rosal correct?

No. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules which must be proven by substantial evidence. Otherwise the misconduct is only simple.

In this case, Rosal is guilty of simple misconduct for having imposed upon Manny the penalty of demotion as a form of disciplinary sanction in the absence of any formal charge and without the benefit of due process. Here Manny was not formally charged nor was he given the chance to show cause why he should be demoted.

Indeed, once an appointment is issued and the appointee assumes a position in the civil service under a completed appointment, he acquires a legal, not merely an equitable right to the position which is protected not only by statute but also by the Constitution. Such right cannot be taken away from him either by revocation of the appointment or by removal, except for cause, and with previous notice and hearing (Rubio vs. Munar, Jr. G.R. 155952, October 4, 2007).

*    *    *

E-mail at: [email protected]