vertudes vs buenaflor

8/18/2019 Vertudes vs Buenaflor

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vertudes-vs-buenaflor 1/32

SECOND DIVISION

TERESITA L. VERTUDES,[1] G.R. No. 153166Petitioner,

Present

P!no, J .,C"#ir$#n, % &ers!s %

A!stri#%'#rtine(,C#))e*o, Sr.,

Tin+#, #n C"i-o%N#(#rio,JJ

. ULIE /UENA0LOR #n/UREAU O0 I''IGRATION, Pro$!)+#teResonents.De-e$2er 16, 445 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

DECISION

PUNO, J .

Before us is a petition for review by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court, seeking to review and set aside the decision [] and resolution[3] of the

Court of Appeals (CA), which affired the decision of the Civil !ervice

Coission (C!C) finding petitioner guilty of grave isconduct anddisissing her fro governent service"

#etitioner $eresita %" &ertudes was a fingerprint e'ainer at the Alien

Registration ivision of the Bureau of igration (B)" n a facsiile

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/153166.htm#_ftn1








letter [] dated *uly +, -../, a certain #eng &illas, a news editor of the

#hilippine 0eekly 1ewspaper, referred to then B Coissioner Rufus

Rodrigue2 the coplaints of private respondent *ulie Buenaflor, Ay

Cosino and 3anuelito %ao, against petitioner"

According to &illas, private respondent Buenaflor coplained of

having been convinced by petitioner into paying the total aount

of #.," in e'change for the processing of her visa, passport and

other travel docuents for *apan" #rivate respondent delivered to petitioner

!ecurity Bank (!B) Check 1os" -4. and -4./ in the aounts

of #," and #+,", respectively, and cash worth #+.,""

6owever, no visa was delivered" #rivate respondent insisted that petitioner

return her oney, to no avail"

&illas also referred to Coissioner Rodrigue2 the coplaint of %aowho allegedly told hi that he paid #7," to petitioner in e'change for

a Chinese &isa and a passport for $aiwan" %ikewise, &illas referred Cosinos

coplaint that the latter collected fro &irfinia ubri8ue, *aie !antos

9lores and 3ariano :vangelista, the aounts of#+," each, upon

petitioner;s word that they would be in e'change for tourist visas" Both %ao

and Cosino claied that the proised passport and visas did not

ateriali2e and despite any re8uests for the return of the aounts paid to

petitioner, she refused to coply" Allegedly, <&ertude2 threatened the that





they cannot force her to pay back the said aount as she has the back up

=of> higher B officials"<

Acting upon &illas; letter, Coissioner Rodrigue2 issued a

eorandu,[5] directing the petitioner to subit a sworn written

e'planation" n her sworn written eorandu, [6] petitioner assailed the

credibility of &illas" !he alleged that &illas was not a eber of the

1ational #ress Club as he claied to be" !he averred that the su

of#5,", as evidenced by !B Check 1os" -4. and -4./,

was e'tended to her by private respondent Buenaflor as a loan" !he was

constrained to borrow oney fro private respondent and other close

friends when her brother becae seriously ill" 6owever, she claied that

she had fully settled her obligation to private respondent through

installent" !he also claied that private respondent was the one

engaged in illegal recruitent through the use of falsified or forged

passports" #rivate respondent was allegedly using petitioners nae in

dealing with soe iigration officials and eployees to e'pedite the

processing of the docuents of her (private respondents) clients" #etitioner

allegedly infored said officers and eployees that she was not connected

to private respondent in any way" #rivate respondent allegedly resented

this <abrupt disassociation"< Also, her repeated refusal to <escort< private

respondent;s clients who were leaving for abroad using falsified travel

docuents allegedly led private respondent to threaten her that she could







easily use !B Check 1os" -4. and -4./ as evidence to file

charges against petitioner by aking it appear that she (private

respondent) gave the oney because of petitioner;s proise to facilitate

her travel to *apan" #etitioner denied having received the su

of #+.," fro private respondent, contending that such clai is <pure

falsehood because of the absence of docuent to prove the alleged

receipt"< As regards the coplaints of %ao and Cosino, petitioner denied

having et or known said persons"

9inding petitioners e'planation <unsatisfactory and =her> defense

weak,< Coissioner Rodrigue2 issued #ersonnel ?rder 1o" RBR ./@7,

[7] preventively suspending her for si'ty (7) days pending the investigation

of the case" $he instant case was assigned to !pecial #rosecutor 1orberto

dela Cru2, who issued a subpoena[8] ordering private respondent and

petitioner to appear before hi on ?ctober -5, -../ for the foral

investigation of the case" t appears that in the eantie, &illas died and

private respondent personally took on the instant coplaint with the B for

rave 3isconduct against petitioner, docketed as Adinistrative Charge

1o" 4" %ao and Cosino filed their respective coplaint@affidavits [9] with

the B which becae the subect of another adinistrative case against

petitioner"[14]

?n August +-, -../, petitioner filed a 3otion for Reconsideration

(Re #ersonnel ?rder 1o" RBR@./@7) with 3otion to isiss"[11] ?n













!epteber +, -../, petitioner filed a 3anifestation with Drgent #rayer to

Resolve 3otion to isiss,[1] averring that the coplaint instituted by

&illas in behalf of private respondent was a harassent case against her"

#etitioner sought the disissal of the instant action on the ground that in

addition to the instant adinistrative case, private respondent had

personally filed her coplaint@affidavit <of siilar nature and character< with

the 3anila City #rosecutor;s ?ffice, docketed as ./@6@44@-, and with

the ?ffice of the ?budsan, docketed as ?3B@./@--"

#rivate respondent narrated the pertinent events in her coplaint@

affidavit[13] as follows-" $hat et 3s" $eresita &ertudes, an eployee of the

Bureau of igration and eportation, ntrauros, 3anilasoetie in the iddle part of -..7E

+" $hat fro that tie on, we becae friends becausewe coe fro the sae region and that she used to tell us thatshe is capable of deploying ob applicants to *apanE

" $hat during one of those ties that dropped by her office, she intiated to e that a group of igration ?fficersare scheduled to leave for *apan for training and that she wasthe one who received a call fro a *apanese ConsulE

4" $hat 3s" $eresita &ertudes asked e if a interestedin going to *apan because she will find a way to accoodatee and told her that a deeply interested but y problewas that y passport was left in Bacolod City and shevolunteered to work@out =and> facilitate the processing of ypassport and visa and that =all> need to do is give her ypicture which didE

5" $hat she even added that she has a brother in *apanwho could also help e find a ob and will be going there







along with her son, *iy &=e>rtudes !antos" !he showed toe her son;s passport and application for a &isa, copies of which are attached and arked as Anne'es <A<, <B< and <C<E

7" $hat according to 3s" &ertudes will be receiving a

salary of one lapad per day as a factory worker and that should accept to her offer, all that will be re8uired of e is to give her the aount of #/,"E

" $hat on eceber +4, -.. 3s" &ertudes receivedfro e !ecurity Bank Check 1o" -4. in the aountof #," which she was able to encash and likewise!ecurity Bank Check 1o" -4./ in the aountof #+," ' ' ' Anne'es << and <:<E

/" $hat on 9ebruary /, -../, because of her insistenceand persistence that should deliver the balanceof #," to her so that could leave in a week;s tie, was forced to produce the said aount by re8uesting a friendto pawn y ewelry in the aount of #+.," and theaforesaid aount was handed to 3s" &ertudes in the presenceof 3s" *oy utierre2 at her office in (B), ntrauros, 3anilaE

." $hat after that last payent, have been asking her asto when a suppose=d> to leave because was alreadyprepared to leave and have in fact told y relatives and friendsthat will be leaving soon for *apan but she did not stopaking proisesE

-" $hat upon the advi=c>e of a lawyer and to be able toknow once and for all whether could still leave, re8uestedy lawyer to write a letter to 3s" &ertudes for her to refund thesus of oney which delivered to her in the total aountof #.," for the processing of y #assport and &isa for

ob deployent abroad but she did not even answer the letter and neither called up y lawyer to e'plain her sideE letter isattached as Anne' <:<E

--" $hat for 3s" $eresita &ertudes; failure to ake goodher proise to deploy e after receiving the aountof #.," in consideration of a ob placeent in *apan,



hereby charge her for the crie of llegal Recruitent and:stafaE ' ' '

Anne'ed to private respondent;s coplaint@affidavit were a) the

affidavit of a certain *essilyn utierre2[1] who attested that she

accopanied private respondent in going to the office of petitioner and she

was with private respondent when the latter delivered to petitioner the

checks aounting to #5," and cash worth #+.," for private

respondent;s ob placeent to *apanE b) copies of the passport and

application for a visa of petitioner;s son, to prove that petitioner showed

these docuents to her so she would believe that she would be going to

*apan with petitioner;s sonE c) copies of !B Check 1os" -4. and

-4./, to prove petitioner;s receipt of the total aount of #5,"

fro private respondentE and d) letter of private respondent;s counsel to

petitioner deanding the refund of #.," fro petitioner"

?n ?ctober -5, -../, petitioner, accopanied by her counsel, and

private respondent appeared before !pecial #rosecutor dela Cru2 for the

foral investigation of the case"[15] $he second hearing took place on

?ctober +, -../, during which, petitioner subitted her Counter@

Affidavit[16] and the affidavits of her witnesses" 6er version was4"-" first et 3s" Buenaflor soetie in -..7 when

was still assigned at the eneral !ervices ivision of theBureau of igrationE

4"+" At that tie, 3s" Buenaflor represented to e thatshe was connected with a travel agency assigned to









processFfacilitate docuents of their clients in the Buereau of igrationE

4"" ndeed, saw 3s" Buenaflor processing and akingfollow@ups of docuents in the different ivisionsFepartents

of the Bureau of igration siilar to what were being doneby the representatives of other travel agencies transactingbusiness therewithE

4"4" uring that period, 3s" Buenaflor and e becaeclose friends because she fre8uently visited e in y office ateneral !ervices ivision and would even stay thereat whileprocessing docuents and waiting for their release" n fact,she often took her lunch and erienda with e andsoeties, with the other eployees of our divisionE

4"5" !oetie in the third week of eceber -.., was infored by y relatives in our hoetown that y brother,3ariano <ido< &ertudes was seriously ill and was thereafter confined on eceber ++, -.. at ingoog eneral 6ospitallocated at ingoog City, 3isais ?rientalE

4"7" $he type of illness of y brother re8uired e'tensivetreatent and edicationE and for this reason, they re8uestedfor financial assistance to defray the e'penses thereforE

4"" !ince was then in financial distress, wasconstrained to borrow oney with interests fro 3s" Buenaflor and other close friends of ine" As a kind gesture on the partof 3s" Buenaflor she e'tended to e a loan in the total aountof #5," as represented by !ecurity Bank check nos"-4. and -4./ in the respective aountsof #," and #+," (citation omitted )E

4"/" t is however our agreeent that would pay theaount of #5," with the additional aountof #-," representing the interests therefore for a totalof #7,"E

4"." 0e further agreed that would pay y financialobligation to 3s" Buenaflor on or before the last day of 3ay-../ fro eceber -.. on installent basisE



4"-" 0ith the aforeentioned aount of #5,"loaned to e by *ulie Buenaflor and the other aounts ' ' 'fro other friends, was able to contribute the total aountof #-," for the treatent and hospitali2ation of ybrother" t was, however, to no avail because y brother diedon *anuary 7, -../E

4"--" #ursuant to our agreeent, was able to pay 3s"Buenaflor on installent basis the total aount of #7,"at y earlier indicated address on the following dates

A$: A3?D1$9ebruary +/, -../ #-5,"3arch -, -../ -5,"

April , -../ -5,"3ay , -../ -5,"

4"-+" tendered the said payents to 3s" Buenaflor aty residence on the dates earlier enuerated in the presenceof y houseaids, :li2a Copo and *ocelyn ReyesE ' ' '

#etitioner averred that private respondent isrepresented to her

(petitioner;s) son, *iy !antos, *r", that she (private respondent) would

facilitate his travel to and eployent in *apan" !he also assailed the

credibility of private respondent by accusing her of using several passports

under different naes" Attached to petitioner;s counter@affidavit were a) a

copy of a passport application in the nae of 6onna !uadia Araneta

showing the photographs of private respondentE b) referral slip of the

#asay City #olice !tation and the sworn stateent of a certain Arando

abala charging private respondent with :stafa and llegal RecruitentE

[17] c) affidavits of petitioner;s son, *iy !antos, *r",[18] and a certain

:nrico $ua2on, showing that they likewise filed a case for :stafa and llegal







Recruitent against private respondentE and d) a copy of the Certificate of

Business 1ae and Certification[19] issued by #rudential Bank, to prove

that private respondent isstated the address of her business

establishent" #etitioner also subitted to !pecial #rosecutor dela Cru2

the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay [4] of her two houseaids, :li2a

Copo and *ocelyn Reyes, to prove that she had fully paid her obligation

to private respondent" %ikewise, she subitted the handwritten oint sworn

stateent[1] of :rnesto &" Cloa and *hun 3" Roero, edia

practitioners, to prove that &illas asked for petitioners forgiveness before

he died, aditting that he only sent his letter dated *uly +, -../ to

Coissioner Rodrigue2 in consideration of the aount given by private

respondent"

?n the sae hearing, the parties agreed to subit the instant case

for resolution"[] $hus, in his Resolution dated 1oveber -+, -../,

[3] !pecial #rosecutor dela Cru2 found petitioner guilty of grave isconduct

and recoended her disissal fro the service"

3eantie, the case instituted by private respondent with the ?ffice of

the ?budsan was referred to the ?ffice of the City #rosecutor, thus

After evaluation, the undersigned finds that the chargesiputed against the respondent are not o::i-e re)#te andthat the adinistrative aspect of the case had already beenundertaken by the Bureau of igration"













n view thereof, it is respectfully recoended that theinstant coplaint be re:erre to t"e O::i-e o: t"e Cit;Prose-!tor o: '#ni)# :or #rori#te #-tion"

!? ?R:R:"[] (emphases supplied )

#etitioner filed a 3otion to Re@open[5] with the B, contending that the

finding of the ?budsan that <the charges iputed against =petitioner>

are not office related< clearly shows that she is not adinistratively liable

for grave isconduct" !he oved for the re@opening of the case <to allow

her to adduce further evidence ainly based on the findings of the

?budsan"< $he otion, however, was denied for lack of erit"[6]

?n *anuary -+, -..., Coissioner Rodrigue2 issued an order,

adopting the resolution of !pecial #rosecutor dela Cru2, viz 06:R:9?R:, respondent $eresita %" &ertude2 is herebyfound liable for grave isconduct under # 1o" / and the

Adinistrative Code of -./" Accordingly, she is ordereddisissed fro the service effective iediately with forfeitureof all benefits under the law, with preudice to her reinstateent in this Bureau and all its branches"

!? ?R:R:"[7]

$he order 8uoted the pertinent portion of !pecial #rosecutor dela

Cru2;s resolution, viz After carefully weighing and evaluating the versions of thecoplainant and the respondent, this ?ffice is ore incline=d>to give credence to coplainant;s declarations that she wasindeed duped by the respondent into parting with the hard@earned oney of #.," on the proise of the respondent











that she would secure a passport and visa for the coplainantto *apan"

Respondent;s alibi that the said aount was a loan fro thecoplainant, who is her friend, is highly unbelievable"

Coplainant does not appear to be a rich person who wouldso easily part with such big aount of oney without anysecurity without any hope or assurance of being re@paid"

$he fact that coplainant paid #.," to the respondentso she could get a passport and a visa to work in *apan as afactory worker clearly showed that she was desperately inneed of a ob" 9or her to give such aount to the respondentas an unsecured loan is e'treely incredulous"

Respondent;s clai that the present coplaint is pureharassent by the coplainant is copletely bereft of credence" 0hat benefit or advantage would the coplainantachieve in fabricating charges against the respondentG

f the coplainant filed this coplaint, it was because shewas wronged by the respondent"

%ikewise, respondent;s allegation that the #5," shereceived fro the coplainant was a loan because she

(respondent) was then in a financial distress and she neededoney to help her sick brother in the province was belied byher own son, *iy &" !antos, *r", who declared in his Affidavitthat soetie in eceber -.., he gave #5," to thecoplainant so that the latter could obtain a tourist visa for hito *apan" 0hy should the respondent bother to geta#5," loan fro the coplainant to assist her ailingbrother when she could readily obtain this aount fro her own sonG

As to respondent;s assertion that she was able to paythe #5," to the coplainant, there is nothing to supportsuch payent" $he stateents of her two (+) aids @@ :li2aC=o>po and *ocelyn Reyes @@ in their Sinumpaang Salaysay that respondent paid to the coplainant the totalaount of #7," during the onths of 9ebruary -../ to



3ay -../ cannot be believed" Being the houseaids of therespondent, it is but natural and to be e'pected of thesepersons to coe to the aid of their eploye=r>" [8]

#etitioner filed a 3otion for Reconsideration andFor 1ew $rial,

[9] reiterating her arguent in her 3otion to Re@open" Again, the otion

was denied"[34] !ubse8uently, the assailed order of disissal was affired

by then epartent of *ustice !ecretary !erafin Cuevas" [31]

#etitioner appealed to the C!C,[3] raising the issues of lack of due

process and lack of substantial evidence" ?n 1oveber -., -..., the C!C

disissed petitioner;s appeal" t held, in part, that A careful study of the records in the light of the

arguents of appellant reveals that the re8uireents of dueprocess have been duly observed in the proceedings had inthis case"

' ' '

As to the second issue, the Coission finds substantialevidence to prove that respondent receive=d> oney ine'change for her services in facilitating the issuance of passport and visa of *ulie Bernardo (sic )"

$he coplaint@affidavit of *ulie Buenaflor is reproducedin part as follows ' ' '

n the absence of any iproper otive or alice on the

part of the witness to foist said charges on respondent, theCoission is inclined to give credence to the stateents of witness Bernardo (sic )" n fact &ertude2 has aditted that shereceived oney fro Buenaflor but argued that the oney wasa ere loan" 6owever, if this were true, Buenaflor should havedeanded for a collateral, considering the aount involved"&ertude2 failed to present any evidence that she gave any













security in return for said loan which akes her version highlyincredible" ' ' '[33]

#etitioner filed a otion for reconsideration[3] of the C!C;s

Resolution, to no avail" $he C!C heldn so far as &ertude2;=s> illegal recruitent activities are

concerned, the Coission finds the e'istence of clear substantial evidence to establish the sae" :videncepresented all point to the fact that &ertude2 solicited oneyfro B clients in return for a visa to *apan" $he witnessesagainst &ertude2 include #eng &illas (eceased), *ulieBuenflor (sic ), Ay Cosino, &irginia %ubriano, 3anuelito %ao

and *aie !antos 9lores" $he affidavits of said witnesses allspeak of the odus operandi of &ertude2 at the B, where sheapproaches B clients and offers the a visa, passport and aneployent contract in e'change for #-+,"" n the caseof witness *ulie Buenaflor, she testified that respondentassured her of a visa, a passport and a ob in *apan for a feeof #/," and that &ertude2 after getting paid failed tofulfill her proise"

t is observed that &ertude2 seeks to destroy thecredibility of witness Buenaflor by iplying that the forer hasa pending case for illegal recruitent and estafa" Records,however, show that the charges against witness Buenaflor allcae up after &ertude2 was forally charged by the B andthat such charges have no reasonable connection with her adinistrative case pending before the Coission" n thisregard, "There being nothing in record to show that witnesseswere actuated by any improper motive, their testimony shall beentitled to full faith and credit." (#eople v" 9lores, +5+ !CRA

-)[35]

$hereafter, petitioner filed a petition for review before the CA, raising

the issues of a) whether or not the B and C!C violated petitioner;s right to









due processE b) whether or not respondents erred in finding that the

alleged illegal recruitent activity of the petitioner had a direct relation to

and connected with the perforance of her duties and responsibilities as

an eployee of the BE and c) whether or not there is substantial evidence

to support the finding that petitioner is an illegal recruiter, thus, warranting

her reoval fro public service"[36]

?n 9ebruary -+, ++, the CA disissed the petition for lack of erit"

$he CA found that <petitioner was given ore than aple opportunity to

ventilate her defense and disprove the charges leveled against her, hence,

there can be no denial of her right to due process"< [37] 3oreover, it held that

<there is ore than substantial evidence proving the charge of grave

isconduct against petitioner"<[38] $he CA ratiocinated thatn the proceedings a 8uo, it was established that

petitioner, indeed, received and encashed the two (+) checks

given by private respondent in the total aount of #hp5,"" $his fact, therefore, gives credence to the claiof private respondent that she gave petitioner two (+) checks inconsideration of the latter;s proise to facilitate her eployent abroad" $his being the case, the burden wasshifted to petitioner to refute this established fact throughe8ually weighty and copetent evidence"

1ow, petitioner aditted having received, and encashed,the two checks fro private respondent but offered the e'cusethat the sae was e'tended to her as a loan" Aside fro her testiony and that of her household helpers to prove thisassertion, no other independent and unbiased evidence wasoffered to prove the fact of loan" As it is, her theory of loanstands on flisy ground and is not sufficient enough tooverthrow the fact established by coplainant" $his









considering that it is highly iprobable and even contrary tohuan e'perience for a person to loan a huge aount of oney as #hp5," without any docuent evidencingsuch loan nor a collateral to secure its payent" 1ote eventhat the two checks were ade payable to <cash,< a bearer instruent, and was not even crossed on its face, hence, canbe encashed by any person holding the negotiable instruent"f, indeed, private respondent gave the two checks to petitioner as a clean loan (without any collateral) without any separatedocuent ebodying their loan agreeent, the latter shouldhave at least been ade the payee of the checks and aeorandu written at the back of the check to the effect thatit is being e'tended as a loan, in order to protect the interest of the lender" $his is conventional business practice which is

altogether absent in the case at bar, hence, petitioner;s theoryof loan ust necessarily cruble"[39]

#etitioner filed a 3otion for Reconsideration, [4] contending that the

CA failed to resolve the issue of whether petitioner;s alleged illegal

recruitent activities are directly connected with her duties and

responsibilities as a 9ingerprint :'ainer of the B" $his otion was

denied"[1]

Dndaunted, petitioner filed this petition, suing up the issues as

follows-" 06:$6:R ?R 1?$ $6: 6?1?RAB%: !D#R:3:C?DR$ 3AH R:&:0 $6: :C!?1 ?9 $6: C?DR$ ?9

A##:A%! 1 CA@"R" !# 1?" 5/77E

+" 06:$6:R ?R 1?$ $6: C?DR$ ?9 A##:A%!R:!?%&: $6: !:C?1 !!D: RA!: 1 $6: #:$$?19?R R:&:0 9%: B:9?R: $E









" 06:$6:R ?R 1?$ $6:R: ! !DB!$A1$A% :&:1C:$? !D##?R$ $6: 911! $6A$ #:$$?1:R ! D%$H?9 RA&: 3!C?1DC$E

4" 06:$6:R ?R 1?$ A #R?3!: $? 9AC%$A$:

:3#%?H3:1$ ?9 A1?$6:R ABR?A C?1!$$D$:!RA&: 3!C?1DC$=E>

5" 06:$6:R ?R 1?$ #:$$?1:R 0A! ACC?R: D:#R?C:!!E

7" 06:$6:R ?R 1?$ $6: AC$ C?1!$$D$1 RA&:3!C?1DC$ 3D!$ 6A&: A R:C$ R:%A$?1 $? $6:9D1C$?1 ?9 $6: #DB%C ?99C: 6:% BHR:!#?1:1$! 1 A31!$RA$&: CA!:!E A1

" 06:$6:R ?R 1?$ $6: A%%:: AC$ C?33$$: BH$6: #:$$?1:R ! R:C$%H R:%A$: $? A1H ?9 6:R9D1C$?1! A! 91:R#R1$ :IA31:R A$ $6:BDR:AD ?9 33RA$?1"[]

$he petition is denied"

0e shall first resolve the issue of due process" #etitioner contends

that the essential re8uireents of due process as laid down in An+ Ti2#;

&. Co!rt o: In!stri#) Re)#tions[3] and Dor!e)o &. CO'ELEC[] were

violated in the case at bar" 9irst, she contends that she was denied of her

right to a full hearing when she was not accorded the opportunity to cross@

e'aine the witnesses against her, as provided under !ection 4/, par" 5,

$itle , Book & of the Adinistrative Code of -./" !he allegedly raised this

issue in her appeal before the C!C" [5]

$he arguent is uneritorious"











0e have e'plained the eaning of the right to cross@e'aination as

a vital eleent of due process as follows$he right of a party to confront and cross@e'aine

opposing witnesses in a udicial litigation, be it criinal or civilin nature, or in proceedings before adinistrative tribunals with8uasi@udicial powers, is a fundaental right which is part of due process" 6owever, t"e ri+"t is # erson#) one <"i-"$#; 2e <#i&e eress); or i$)ie); 2; -on!-t#$o!ntin+ to # ren!n-i#tion o: t"e ri+"t o: -ross%e#$in#tion. T"!s, <"ere # #rt; "#s "# t"e oort!nit;to -ross%e#$ine # <itness 2!t :#i)e to #&#i) "i$se): o: it,"e ne-ess#ri); :or:eits t"e ri+"t to -ross%e#$ine and thetestiony given on direct e'aination of the witness will bereceived or allowed to reain in the record"[6] (emphasissupplied )

n the case at bar, petitioner cannot argue that she was deprived of

due process siply because no cross@e'aination took place" 1othing on

record shows that petitioner asked for cross@e'aination during the foral

investigation conducted by !pecial #rosecutor dela Cru2" 1otably, two

hearings were conducted, during which, both private respondent and

petitioner appeared" uring the hearing dated ?ctober +, -../, both

parties agreed to subit the case for resolution after petitioner subitted

her counter@affidavit and the affidavits of her witnesses" n fact, when

petitioner filed her 3otion to Re@open the case with the B, she did not

8uestion the lack of cross@e'aination during the investigation

proceedings" !he erely based her otion on the order of the ?ffice of the

?budsan finding the charge against her as <not office related"< n the





sae pleading, she aditted that <=a>s early as ?ctober +, -../, the

instant adinistrative action has been subitted for resolution #:ter t"e

-ontenin+ #rties "#&e s!2$itte t"eir rese-ti&e e&ien-e< and that

her ove for the re@opening of the adinistrative case was erely < to

#))o< "er to #!-e :!rt"er e&ien-e $#in); 2#se on t"e :inin+s o:

t"e O::i-e o: t"e O$2!s$#n.< Again, in her 3otion for Reconsideration

andFor 1ew $rial of Coissioner Rodrigue2;s order of disissal, she

erely reiterated her arguents in her 3otion to Re@open" !he never

coplained that she was deprived of her right to cross@e'aination during

the investigation of !pecial #rosecutor dela Cru2" $he right to cross@

e'aination being a personal right, petitioner ust be deeed to have

waived this right by agreeing to subit the case for resolution and not

8uestioning the lack of it in the proceedings before the B"

3ore iportantly, it is well@settled that the essence of due process in

adinistrative proceedings is an opportunity to e'plain one;s side or an

opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling coplained of"

[7] $his was clearly satisfied in the case at bar" Records show that

petitioner not only gave her sworn written e'planation of the charges

against her during the initial stage of the investigation, she also subitted

a) a sworn counter@affidavit refuting the charges against her, with all the

attached anne'es as evidenceE b) a 3otion to Re@open the case with the

BE c) a 3otion for Reconsideration andFor 1ew $rial with the BE d) an





Appeal to the C!CE e) a 3otion for Reconsideration with the C!CE f) an

Appeal to the CAE g) a 3otion for Reconsideration with the CAE and h) the

instant petition for review"

!econd, petitioner contends that Coissioner Rodrigue2 violated

the principle that <the tribunal or body or any of its udges ust act on its or

his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy

and not siply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision<

when his denial of her 3otion to Re@open and his order finding her guilty of

grave isconduct were based e'clusively on the resolution of !pecial

#rosecutor dela Cru2"[8]

$his arguent is likewise unavailing"

$here is nothing essentially wrong in the head of a bureau adopting

the recoendation of a subordinate" !ection 4, Book & of the

Adinistrative Code of -./ gives thechief of bureau or office or

departent the power to delegate the task of investigating a case to a

subordinate"[9] 0hat due process deands is for the chief of the bureau to

personally weigh and assess the evidence which the subordinate has

gathered and not erely to rely on the recoendation of saidinvestigating officer"[54]

n the case at bar, the order of Coissioner Rodrigue2 enoys the

disputable presuption that official duties have been regularly perfored"









$hat his decision 8uotes the resolution of !pecial #rosecutor dela Cru2

does not necessarily iply that he did not personally e'aine the affidavits

and evidence presented by the parties" #etitioner;s bare assertion that

Coissioner Rodrigue2 did not personally e'aine the evidence, without

ore, is not sufficient to overcoe this presuption"

$hird, petitioner contends that the C!C did not have basis in finding

a) that the affidavits of <#eng &illas (eceased), *ulie Buenaflor, Ay

Cosino, &irginia %ubriano, 3anuelito %ao and *aie !antos 9lores ' ' ' all

speak of the odus operandi of &ertude2 at the B< as these affidavits

were not subitted to the C!CE and b) that petitioner <solicited oney fro

B clients< inasuch as private respondent never alleged that she was a B

client" 3oreover, the C!C;s finding that private respondent <testified that

respondent assured her of a visa, a passport and a ob in *apan for a fee

of #/," and that &ertude2, after getting paid, failed to fulfill her

proise< is not supported by the coplaint@affidavit of private respondent

which erely stated that petitioner <volunteered to work@out and facilitate

the processing of =private respondent;s> passport and visa< and that

petitioner <has a brother in *apan who could also help =private respondent>

find a ob"<[51]

#etitioner also assails the failure of the B and C!C to

consider the handwritten oint sworn stateent of edia practitioners

Cloa and Roero and the oint affidavit of the houseaids of petitioner,

Copo and Reyes"[5]







Again, these arguents fail to ipress"

t is settled that only 8uestions of law are entertained in petitions for

review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court" [53] t is not the

function of this Court, in a petition under Rule 45, to scrutini2e, weigh and

analy2e evidence all over again"[5] 0ell@settled is the rule that the findings

of fact of 8uasi@udicial agencies, like the B and the C!C, are accorded not

only respect but even finality if such findings are supported by substantial

evidence"[55]

!ubstantial evidence is such aount of relevant evidence

which a reasonable ind ight accept as ade8uate to support a

conclusion, even if other e8ually reasonable inds ight conceivably opine

otherwise"[56]

n the case at bar, we note that contrary to petitioner;s stance, the

affidavits of %ao and Cosino do appear in the records of the C!C"

[57]

n anycase, the affidavits of &illas, Cosino, %ubriano, %ao and 9lores are of little

relevance to the case at bar" f any, they are erely corroborating evidence"

1ote that it was only in the C!C;s resolution on petitioner;s 3otion for

Reconsideration that said affidavits were entioned" $hese affidavits were

not used as basis for the decision rendered by the B, the ain decision of

the C!C denying the appeal of petitioner and the decision of the CA" 0e

find the unanious finding of guilt of the B, the C!C and the CA aply

supported by the following evidence on record a) the coplaint@affidavit of

private respondentE b) the affidavit of *essilyn utierre2E c) copies of the













passport and application for a visa of petitioner;s sonE d) copies of !B

Check 1os" -4. and -4./E and e) letter of private respondent;s

counsel to petitioner deanding fro petitioner the refund of

the #.," that private respondent paid to petitioner"

As to the other contentions, we note that in addition to the self@

serving 8uotations of petitioner fro the coplaint@affidavit of private

respondent, said coplaint@affidavit categorically alleged that petitioner told

private respondent that the latter would <be receiving a salary of

one lapad per day as a factory worker and that should =she> accept

=petitioner;s> offer, all that =would> be re8uired of =her was> to give

=petitioner> the aount of #/,""< #rivate respondent also

categorically alleged that she was charging petitioner for her <failure to

ake good her ro$ise to e)o; =her> after receiving the aount

of #.," in consideration of a *o2 )#-e$ent in *apan"< $hus,

contrary to petitioner;s stance, the assailed findings of the C!C are

supported by private respondent;s coplaint@affidavit"

3oreover, it is well@settled that it is not for the appellate court to

substitute its own udgent for that of the adinistrative agency on the

sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses"

Adinistrative decisions on atters within their urisdiction are entitled to

respect and can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion,

fraud or error of law" 1one of these vices has been shown in this case" [58]





0e shall now proceed to the other issue whether petitioner is guilty

of grave isconduct warranting her reoval fro governent service"

Citing S#ri+!$2# &. P#so=,[59] petitioner contends that

<=>isconduct, warranting reoval fro office of a public officer, ust have

a direct relation to and connected with the perforance of official duties,

aounting either to aladinistration or willful, intentional neglect and

failure to discharge the duties of the office"< !ince the B is a governent

agency principally responsible for the adinistration and enforceent of

iigration, citi2enship and alien adission and registration laws, <by no

stretch of iagination< can there be a direct relation between the function

of a fingerprint e'ainer and the alleged proise to facilitate private

respondent;s eployent abroad"[64]#etitioner also capitali2es on the

allegation of private respondent in her coplaint@affidavit that she and

petitioner <becae friends< to contend that the acts being iputed against

her are personal and not office@related"[61]

$hese arguents lack erit"

$he allegations in private respondents coplaint@affidavit indicate

that petitioner used her position as a B eployee to assure privaterespondent that she could facilitate petitioner;s deployent to *apan"

#rivate respondent alleged that <during one of those ties that =she>

dropped by =petitioner;s> office, =petitioner> intiated to =her> that # +ro!









o: I$$i+r#tion o::i-ers [<ere] s-"e!)e to )e#&e :or ##n :or

tr#inin+ #n t"#t [etitioner] <#s t"e one <"o re-ei&e # -#)) :ro$ #

##nese Cons!)"< #etitioner <asked =private respondent> if =she was>

interested in going to *apan because [etitioner] <i)) :in # <#; to

#--o$$o#te ["er]"<

:ven petitioner;s own adissions show that her position as an

eployee of the B ay be utili2ed in connection with illegal recruitent" n

her eorandu to Coissioner Rodrigue2, as reiterated in her

counter@affidavit, petitioner alleged that private respondent was engaged in

illegal recruitent and <<#s !sin+ [etitioner>s] n#$e in "er e#)in+s

<it" so$e i$$i+r#tion o::i-i#)s #n e$)o;ees, res!$#2); to

eeite t"e ro-essin+ o: t"e o-!$ents 2e)on+in+ to "er -)ients "<

#etitioner likewise claied that she <e-)ine [ri&#te resonent>s]

roos#) t"#t [s"e] >es-ort> so$e o: [ri&#te resonent>s] -)ients

<"o <o!) 2e )e#&in+ :or :orei+n -o!ntries 2!t <it" :#)si:ie tr#&e)

o-!$ents"< #rivate respondent even told her that the <proposed schee

could easily be done 2e-#!se 2ein+ #n e$)o;ee o: t"is /!re#!,

[etitioner "#s] se&er#) -onne-tions not on); #t t"e Nino; A?!ino

Intern#tion#) Airort @NAIA 2!t #)so in '#-t#n Intern#tion#) Airort"<

$hat her position is designated as <fingerprint e'ainer< is not

deterinative of the issue of whether the charge against her is work@

related" $he allegations in the coplaint against petitioner and her own



adissions show that her duties go beyond her ob title and that the charge

against her is connected with her position as an eployee of the B"

9inally, petitioner contends that <a proise to find a way to

accoodate private respondent and a representation that petitioner has

a brother who could help private respondent find a ob are not isconduct

warranting the disissal of petitioner fro office< but, <=a>t ost,< only

<entitle=s> private respondent to civil indenity"< #etitioner contends that the

CA;s finding that petitioner erely ade a <proise to facilitate< private

respondent;s eployent abroad, as distinguished fro the C!C;s finding

that petitioner coitted <shaeful illegal recruitent activities,< practically

absolved petitioner fro the charge of grave isconduct"

$his arguent deserves scant consideration"



3isconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or

deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by

a governent official"[6] As distinguished fro siple isconduct, the

eleents of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard

of established rule, ust be anifest in a charge of grave isconduct"

[63] Corruption, as an eleent of grave isconduct, consists in the act of an

official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or

character to procure soe benefit for hiself or for another person,

contrary to duty and the rights of others"[6] An act need not be tantaount

to a crie for it to be considered as grave isconduct as in fact, cries

involving oral turpitude are treated as a separate ground for disissal

under the Adinistrative Code"[65]

n the case at bar, petitioner cannot downplay the charges againsther" 0hether the charges against petitioner satisfy the eleents of illegal

recruitent to ake her criinally liable for such crie is not the issue at

bar" At the very least, petitioner was found to have taken advantage of her

position as an eployee of the B to falsely proise, for pecuniary gain,

the facilitation of private respondent;s travel to *apan, including the

processing of her passport, visa and other travel docuents" 0orse, she

was found to have refused to reiburse the aounts paid to her by private

respondent even when the proised passport, visa, and travel docuents

did not ateriali2e" Dndoubtedly, these acts involve <corruption, clear intent











to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule"< Dnder !ection

+(c), Rule I& the ?nibus Civil !ervice Rules and Regulations, these

acts constitute a grave offense for which petitioner ust suffer the penalty

of disissal"

IN VIEB BEREO0, the petition is DENIED" $he Court of Appeals

ecision dated 9ebruary -+, ++ and Resolution dated April -7, ++ in

CA@"R" !# 1o" 5/77 are A00IR'ED"

SO ORDERED"

RENATO S. PUNO Associate *ustice

BE CONCUR

'A. ALICIA AUSTRIA%'ARTINE Associate *ustice

RO'EO . CALLEO, SR. DANTE O. TINGA

Associate *ustice Associate *ustice



'INITA V. CICO%NAARIO Associate *ustice

ATTESTATION

attest that the conclusions in the above ecision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the

Courts ivision"

RENATO S. PUNO Associate *usticeChairan, !econd ivision

CERTI0ICATION

#ursuant to !ection -, Article & of the Constitution, and the ivision

Chairans Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the

above ecision were reached in consultation before the case was

assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts ivision"



ILARIO G. DAVIDE, R.Chief *ustice

=-> Also spelled as <&ertude2< in soe parts of the records" =+> ated 9ebruary -+, ++E Rollo, pp" @45" => ated April -7, ++E Id. at 47@4" =4> Id. at 4/@4."=5> ated *uly -, -../E C!C Records, p" +7" =7> Rollo, pp" 5@54"=> ated August 5, -../E Id. at 55" =/> C!C Records, p" ."=.> Id. at 4-@4" =-> Id. at 45@4" =--> Rollo, pp" 57@7" =-+> Id. at 7-@74" =->

Id. at --.@-+"=-4> C!C Records, p" +57" =-5> Id. at +" =-7> Anne' <*<E Rollo, pp" 7@4"=-> Id. at 5" =-/> Id. at -+-@-+4" =-.> Id. at 7"

=+> Id. at /@." =+-> Id. at /-" =++> C!C Records, p" -+" =+> Id. at -5@-5-"

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/153166.htm#_ftnref1
















































=+4> Rollo, pp" /+@/" =+5> Id. at /4@/5" =+7> 3eorandu dated *anuary -+, -...E Id. at ."

=+> Id. at ."=+/> Id. at .+@." =+.> Id. at .4@-" => ?rder dated 9ebruary /, -...E Id. at -" =-> C!C Records, p" .4" =+> Id. at 474@5-"=>

Resolution 1o" ..+57.E Rollo, pp" ---@--" =4> C!C Records, pp" 7@-4" =5> Resolution 1o" ..E Rollo, p" --" =7> CA Rollo, p" 4-" => Rollo, p" 4" =/> Id. at 45" =.> Id. at 44@45" =4> CA Rollo, pp" +75@+" =4-> Resolution dated April -7, ++E Supra note " =4+> 3eoranduE Rollo, pp" +.@+-" =4> 7. #hil" 75 (-.4)" =44> - !CRA 7 (-./4)"

=45> 3eorandu for the #etitionerE Rollo, pp" ++4@++5"=47> 9ulgado v" CA, -/+ !CRA /-, / (-..), citing !avory %uncheonette v" %akas ng

3anggagawa, 7+ !CRA +5, +7@+7 (-.5)"

=4> &elas8ue2 v" 6ernande2, 4 !CRA 5, 7/ (+4), citing Adiong v" CA, - !CRA (+-) and &da" de ela Cru2 v" Abille, 5+ !CRA 7.- (+-)"



















































=4/> 3eorandu for the #etitionerE Rollo, p" ++" =4.> !aid provision states that <=a>n investigation ay be entrusted to a regional director

or siilar officials who shall ake the necessary report and recoendation to

the chief of bureau or office or departent"< =5> 3ollaneda v" Dacob, 5/ !CRA 5, 54/ (+-)"=5-> 3eorandu for the #etitionerE Rollo, pp" ++-@++" =5+> Id. at ++5"

=5> See !ection -, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court"=54> &illalon v" CA, -. !CRA 5, 57 (-...), citing :stonina v" Court of Appeals, +77

!CRA 7+, 75 (-..)E Atlantic ulf and #acific Copany of 3anila, nc" v"Court of Appeals, +4 !CRA 77, 7-+ (-..5)E e los !antos v" Reyes, +5!CRA 4, 445 (-..+)E #hilippine 1ational Bank v" nterediate Appellate Court,-/ !CRA -, -. (-..)"

=55> Rosario v" &ictory Riceill, . !CRA 7, 77 (+), citing 9eli' v" :nertech

!ystes ndustries, nc", 55 !CRA 7/ (+-)" =57> Bagong Bayan Corporation v" 1%RC, -/ !CRA - (-./.), citing %ansang v"

arcia, 4+ !CRA 44/ (-.-)" =5> C!C Records, pp" 4-@44"=5/> Bernardo v" CA, 4+. !CRA +/4, +..@ (+4), citing adubo v" C!C, ++ !CRA

4 (-..)" =5.> -55 !CRA 747 (-./)" =7> Rollo, p" ++" =7-> Id. at +++"=7+> C!C v" Belagan, 44 !CRA 5/, 5.. (+4), citing 3aguad v" e u2an, 5

!CRA 47. (-...) and %acson v" Ro8ue, .+ #hil" 457 (-.5)" =7> Id ", citing Civil !ervice Coission v" %ucas, 7- #hil" 4/7 (-...)" =74> Id., citing Black;s %aw ictionary, p" 45" =75> See !ection 47(b)(-), Book &"





































vertudes vs buenaflor

Documents