Digest: Rubio v. Munar, Jr. (534 SCRA 597, 2007)

When Substantial Evidence Rule not Applicable
Digest: Rubio v. Munar, Jr. (534 SCRA 597, 2007)
G.R. No. 155952. October 4, 2007
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

 

Facts: The present petition stemmed from a complaint for dishonesty, grave misconduct, falsification of official document and oppression filed by Pio L. Munar, Jr. (respondent) against Juanito A. Rubio (petitioner) together with Virginia C. Laudencia (Laudencia) and Clarence C. Morales (Morales) with the Regional Office of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) at San Fernando, La Union.

Prior to the filing of the said complaint, respondent was a Utility Foreman of the Department of Health and assigned to the Ilocos Regional Hospital in San Fernando, La Union, where petitioner, Laudencia and Morales were serving as Chief of Hospital, Acting Personnel Officer and Payroll Master, respectively.

Committee of the Ilocos Regional Hospital conducted a meeting for the purpose of assessing the performance of the hospital personnel. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee recommended that respondent be demoted from his position as Utility Foreman to Utility Worker I.

The recommendation of the Committee was then forwarded to petitioner who, acting thereon, issued an appointment to respondent demoting him to the lower position of Utility Worker I with corresponding reduction in pay.

This prompted respondent to file the above-mentioned complaint against petitioner, Laudencia and Morales.

CSC Regional Office found that there exists a prima facie case against petitioner, Laudencia and Morales

CSC Hearing Officer Atty. Elvira L. Lomboy found that respondent failed to establish by sufficient evidence that petitioner and Laudencia were guilty of the infractions of which they had been charged. The Investigation Report was approved by Imelda G. Abueg, Director IV of CSC Regional Office No.

Investigation Report was forwarded to the CSC Central Office. Central Office issued a Resolution finding petitioner guilty of simple misconduct and was meted the penalty of three-month suspension.

Aggrieved by the Resolution of the CSC Central Office, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CA. On August 30, 2002, the CA rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is exempted from the rule that factual findings of administrative agencies, such as the CSC, that are affirmed by the CA, are conclusive upon and generally not reviewable by this Court

Ruling: No. In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the CSC Central Office that petitioner is guilty of simple misconduct for having imposed upon respondent the penalty of demotion as a form of disciplinary sanction, in the absence of any formal charge and without the benefit of due process.

Settled is the rule that factual findings of administrative agencies, such as the CSC, that are affirmed by the CA, are conclusive upon and generally not reviewable by this Court.

There are recognized exceptions to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. The Court finds that none of these exceptions is present in the instant case.

A review of the records of the present case reveals that there is no evidence to show that respondent was formally charged, and that he was given a chance to show cause why he should not be demoted. In fact, petitioner failed to refute the findings of the CSC Central Office regarding this matter.