Civil Service Commission v.

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.

(2) Penalty of dismissal too severe.

a. True that grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal.
b. In this case, however, Belagan has served the government for 37 years, during
which, he made a steady ascent from an Elementary Grade School Teacher to
Schools Division Superintendent. He also received numerous awards during such
time. This is the first time he is being administratively charged and he is in the edge
of retirement.
c. Length of service and other analogous cases can be considered as mitigating,
aggravating, or alternative circumstances in determining the penalties under the
law.
d. Suspended for 1 year without pay.

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.

Magdalena’s derogatory record is not sufficient to discredit her credibility

• Credibility means the disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony given. It refers to a person’s
integrity, and to the fact that he is worthy of belief. 

• Under Section 11, Rule 132, a witness may be discredited by evidence attacking his general reputation for
truth, honesty or integrity. 

• In this case, the cases and complaints against Magdalena are no longer reliable proofs of Magdalena’s
character or reputation. 
o
o The acts complained of were committed in the 1980s and 70s while the in the instant administrative,
the offense was committed in 1994.
o Evidence of one’s character or reputation must be confined to a time not too remote from the
time in question. What is to be determined is the character or reputation of the person at the
time of the trial and report thereto, but not at a period remote from the commencement of the
suit.
o Furthermore, Belagan failed to prove that Magdalena was convicted in any of the criminal cases.
The GR is that it is not permissible to show that a witness has been arrested or that he has been
charged with or prosecuted for a criminal offense, or confined in jail for the purpose of impairing
his credibility.
• Resolution of CSC is supported by substantial evidence.

o Magdalena testified in a straightforward, candid and spontaneous manner. Her testimony is replete
with details which she would not have thought of if she were not telling the truth.

DISPOSITIVE
Reversed. Petition granted. But RESP only suspended from service for 1 year in view of his 37
years of service.