Case Digest (G.R. No. 217898) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The case of Dioscoro F. Bacsin v. Eduardo O. Wahiman arose from allegations that petitioner Bacsin, a public school teacher at Pandan Elementary School in Mambajao, Camiguin Province, improperly touched AAA, a female student, on August 16, 1995. According to AAA’s uncontradicted account, Bacsin summoned her to his office under the guise of an errand, retrieved a folder, asked her to approach, then held her hand and fondled her breast five times, causing her fear. Classmate Vincent B. Sorrabas corroborated her testimony. Bacsin defended that the contact was accidental while handing her a lesson book and that the incident lasted only seconds without any complaint thereafter. On February 12, 1996, Regional Director Vivencio N. Muego, Jr. of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) filed a Formal Charge for Misconduct. In Resolution No. 98-0521 dated March 11, 1998, the CSC found Bacsin guilty of Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual Harassment) under Republic Act No. 7877 and dismissed him; t Case Digest (G.R. No. 217898) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
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)