GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND DISHONESTY REFLECT THE FITNESS OF A CIVIL SERVANT

TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE
Atty. John V. Aquino v. Elena S. Alcasid
A.M. No. P-15-3361; February 23, 2016
Per Curiam:

FACTS:
Petitioner Atty. John V. Aquino (Aquino), a Clerk VI at OCC in the RTC of Olongapo City,
alleged that it was the duty of Jennifer Decano (Decano), Clerk IV of the same, to release the
checks of all its employees.

He claimed that while Decano was on leave, respondent Elena S. Alcasid (Alcasid) volunteered
to release the checks on Decanos stead. After some time, Arlene Batalla (Batalla), one of the
RTC employees, informed Aquino that she has not received her salary for the second half of the
month. This prompted an investigation where another ten (10) checks were found to be missing.
Alcasid claimed that despite diligent efforts, she could no longer find the same.

But upon further inquiry from the Fiscal Management Office (FMO) of the Court, the missing
checks were found to either be discounted or deposited in a bank account in United Coconut
Planters Bank (UCPB) Olangapo City. Alcasid denied that she discounted and/or deposited in
her account the said missing checks.

The Executive Judge found Alcasid administratively liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty
as the missing checks were entrusted to Alcasid which she did not deny.

While the OCA agrees that Alcasid be held accountable for the loss of the missing checks, it
ruled that she could not be held accountable for the deposit of the other missing checks in a
single UCPB account since there is no direct evidence showing that it is her bank account.

ISSUE:
Is Alcasid guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty?

HELD:
Yes, Alcasid is guilty of grave misconduct and dishonestly.

Under the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust, the act of stealing and
discounting Batallas check amounted to grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.

It was further provided in Section 46(A) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service (RRACCS) that grave misconduct and dishonesty are considered grave offenses
punishable by dismissal from the service.

Since Alcasid was guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, her dismissal from office is
proper.
DISMISSAL WITHOUT DEFINING WHAT CONSTITUTES IMMORALITY AS VIOLATION OF
RIGHT TO LIBERTY
Christine Joy Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc.
G.R. No. 187417; February 24, 2016
Reyes, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner Christine Joy Capin-Cadiz (Cadiz) was the Human Resource Officer of respondent
Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc. (Brent).

During the course of her employment, she became pregnant out of wedlock. Thus, Brent
imposed an indefinite suspension upon Cadiz due to unprofessionalism and unethical behaviour
resulting to unwed pregnancy. The condition for reinstatement is if she marries her boyfriend.

Cadiz then filed a complaint with the LA for unfair labor practice, constructive dismissal, non-
payment of wages, and damages with prayer for reinstatement. She avers that getting pregnant
outside of wedlock is not grossly immoral, especially when both partners do not have any legal
impediment to marry. Further, the condition that she gets married is a violation of her rights. On
the other hand, Brent argued that pre-marital relation is an act of immorality which is against its
policy manual.

The LA ruled that she was not illegally dismissed for there was just cause for her dismissal. CA
likewise affirmed the ruling of the LA holding Cadizs dismissal from employment valid.

ISSUE:
Does Cadizs dismissal constitute a violation of her right to liberty?

HELD:
Yes, Cadizs dismissal constitutes a violation of her right to liberty.

As held in previous jurisprudence, the constitutional right to liberty does not merely refer to
freedom from physical restraint. It also includes the freedom to choose how a person defines
her personhood and how she decides to live her life.

In the present case, when Brent imposed on Cadiz that she be married in order to be reinstated,
it breached not just a mere statutory prohibition but a constitutional right. She was deprived of
her right to choose to get married as she will be forced to make a decision against her will if she
wants to remove her suspension.

Therefore, Cadizs dismissal constituted a violation of her right to liberty.

(from the concurring opinion of J. Jardeleza)

RIGHT TO CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION IN EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION AS BASIS
FOR CONVICTION
People v. Vicente Lugnasin and Devincio Guerrero
G.R. No. 208404; February 24, 2016
De Castro, J.

FACTS:
Niccasius Cordero (Cordero) was abducted while opening the garage door of his residence in
Mindanao Avenue. Fifteen (15) minutes after paying the toll in South Superhighway, the car
driver switched places with a jeepney driver from the front who introduced himself as
Commander. Cordero was kept in a small house while the men negotiated with his sister-in-law
for the ransom money.

He was eventually released on the fourth day despite not having paid the ransom money.

Cordero later on identified accused-appellants Devincio Guerrero (Guerrero) as the man who
pushed him inside the car and Vicente Lugnasin (Guerrero) as the Commander. Accused-
appellants denied the allegations.

DOJ filed information against accused-appellants of kidnapping for ransom. RTC found
accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the same. On appeal, Devincio claimed,
among others, that he was not informed of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest and
his rights under R.A. No. 7438 during investigation. CA held that aside from his bare-faced
claim, Devincio has offered no other evidence to sustain his claim.

ISSUE:
Is there a violation of Guerreros right to custodial investigation?

HELD:
No, there is no violation of Guerreros right to custodial investigation.

As stated in People v. Buluran and Valenzuela, any allegation of violation of rights during
custodial investigation is relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission
or confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis of their conviction.

In the present case, Cordero made an in-court identification to both accused-appellants in court
when he was asked to identify them inside the court room. He did not execute an extrajudicial
confession which would merit a violation of accused-appellants constitutional right.

Therefore, Guerreros right to custodial investigation was not violated.

CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES CONSIDERED IN JUST COMPENSATION
Republic v. C.C. Unson Co., Inc.
G.R. No. 215107; February 24, 2016
Mendoza, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner Republic filed a complaint for expropriation through the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB).
It sought the implementation of South Luzon Tollway Extension Project (SLEPP) to extend the
South Luzon Expressway for a more convenient travel within the region. Respondent C.C.
Unson Co., Inc. (Unson) is the owner of the affected properties.

Unson sought to expropriate two (2) of its lots for 2,250.00 per sq. meter. In contrast, Republic
contends that one (1) of the lots should have a lower zonal value of 1,150.00 per sq. meter.
But Unson argues that since both properties were classified as residential, then a higher
valuation is only proper.

To settle the dispute, a Board of Commission (Board) was instituted by the RTC for the
assessment of just compensation of the affected lots. The Board considered 3,000.00 per sq.
meter as compromise amount in the end.

RTC arrived at the fixed amount of 3,500.00 as basis for just compensation. It considered the
potential use of the properties and expert opinions which factored in consequential damages
due to the dangling lots that could no longer be used for any business purposes. CA affirmed
the RTC and held that the highest and best use of the land did not equate to potential use.

ISSUE:
Is there just compensation on the affected properties?

HELD:
Yes, there is just compensation on the affected properties.

As a general rule, just compensation, to which the owner of the property to be expropriated is
entitled, is equivalent to the market value. Market value is that sum of money which a person
desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell, would agree
on as a price to be paid by the buyer and received by the seller. This rule is modified only where
a part of a certain property is expropriated.

In the case at hand, as it was determined by the Board that 750 sq. meters would be left
unused, it is only fit that Unson be entitled to consequential damages as the remaining portion
of the property suffers from impairment or decrease in value.

Therefore, there was just compensation on the affected properties.

PETITION TO CHALLENGE NUISANCE CANDIDACY TO BE FILED WITHIN GIVEN PERIOD
HRET HAS NO JURISDICTION
Wigberto R. Taada, Jr. v. HRET, Angelina D. Tan, and Alvin John S. Taada
G.R. No. 215107; February 24, 2016
Carpio, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner Wigberto R. Taada, Jr. (Wigberto) and private respondents Angelina D. Tan (Tan)
and Alvin John S. Taada (Alvin) are candidates for member of the Fourth (4th) District of
Gumaca, Quezon in the May 13, 2013 elections.

Wigberto filed twin petitions before the COMELEC to cancel Alvins COC and to declare Alvin as
a nuisance candidate. COMELEC en Banc declared that Alvin was not a nuisance candidate but
nevertheless, it cancelled his COC. However, in the elections, Alvins name remained in the
ballots. The canvass of votes indicated that Tan was the winning candidate with a margin of 84
votes to second-placer, Wigberto. Despite his disqualification, Alvin still received 7,038 votes.

Wigberto contends that fraud is extant through the malicious fielding of a nuisance candidate in
order to sabotage his chances. He prays that the votes Alvin received be credited in his favor.
He filed an petition challenging the nuisance candidacy of Alvin before the HRET.

HRET declared that the election protest is insufficient in form and substance. Further, it has no
jurisdiction to declare that Alvin is a nuisance candidate as its power to judge election contests
is limited to members of the House.

ISSUE:
Did the HRET commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition?

HELD:
No, the HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition.

Rule 37, Sec. 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides in part that the petition to
declare a candidate as nuisance shall become final and executory after the lapse of five (5)
days from their promulgation.

In this case, what Wigberto should have resorted to was the filing of a petition for certiorari with
the Court within five (5) days from promulgation of the April 23, 2013 resolution of the
COMELEC en Banc. He failed to timely assail the COMELEC En Banc resolution as the petition
was only filed on May 27, 2013. It was also not proper for the HRET to assume jurisdiction and
rule on the matter for Alvin was not a member of the House.

Therefore, the HRET did not commit grave about of discretion in denying the petition.
Mahusay v. Gareza
A.M. No. P-16-3430; March 1, 2016
Per Curiam:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

Basiana Mining Exploration Corp. v. DENR Secretary and SR Metals, Inc. (SRMI)
G.R. No. 191705; March 7, 2016
Reyes, J.

FACTS:

ISSUE:
Does the DENR Secretary exercise quasi-judicial powers?

HELD: