Title
Bacsin vs. Wahiman
Case
G.R. No. 146053
Decision Date
Apr 30, 2008
A public school teacher was dismissed for Grave Misconduct after sexually harassing a student, upheld by courts as a violation of RA 7877 and trust in the profession.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 217898)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Petitioner Dioscoro F. Bacsin was a public elementary school teacher at Pandan Elementary School, Pandan, Mambajao, Camiguin.
    • Respondent Eduardo O. Wahiman is the father of AAA, one of petitioner’s students.
  • Allegations of Sexual Harassment
    • AAA testified that on August 16, 1995, petitioner called her to his office, fondled her breast five times, and caused her to feel afraid.
    • A classmate, Vincent B. Sorrabas, corroborated AAA’s account of the incident.
  • Administrative Proceedings Before the CSC
    • On February 12, 1996, CSC Regional Director Vivencio N. Muego, Jr. filed a formal charge of “Misconduct” against petitioner.
    • In his defense, petitioner claimed the touching was accidental while handing AAA a book, occurred within seconds, and elicited no immediate complaint.
  • Resolutions of the Civil Service Commission
    • Resolution No. 98-0521 (March 11, 1998) found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual Harassment) under Republic Act No. 7877 and dismissed him from service.
    • Resolution No. 99-0273 (January 28, 1999) denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
  • Appeal to the Court of Appeals
    • Petitioner elevated the case to the CA via CA-G.R. SP No. 51900, raising issues of due process, sufficiency of evidence, and penalty irregularity.
    • The CA affirmed the CSC, holding that petitioner had been accorded due process and that the evidence established grave misconduct warranting dismissal.

Issues:

  • Whether petitioner could be found guilty of acts of sexual harassment (grave misconduct) different from or not specifically alleged in the formal charge of “Misconduct.”
  • Assuming petitioner was guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct and misconduct, whether the penalty of dismissal conforms with Rule XIV, Section 23 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and pertinent rulings.
  • Whether a charge of “Misconduct” (a lesser offense) includes the offense of “Grave Misconduct” (a greater offense).

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.