Case Digest (G.R. No. 146053)
Facts:
The case involves Dioscoro F. Bacsin, a public school teacher at Pandan Elementary School in Mambajao, Camiguin Province, as the petitioner, and Eduardo O. Wahiman, the father of AAA, an elementary student of Bacsin, as the respondent. The events leading to the case began on August 16, 1995, when AAA alleged that Bacsin summoned her to his office for an errand. Once inside, she claimed that Bacsin fondled her breast multiple times, which made her feel afraid. A classmate, Vincent B. Sorrabas, testified that he witnessed the incident, corroborating AAA's account. Following these allegations, Bacsin was formally charged with misconduct by Regional Director Vivencio N. Muego, Jr. of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on February 12, 1996. In his defense, Bacsin contended that the touching was accidental while he was handing AAA a lesson book and that the incident lasted only a few seconds, with AAA leaving without complaint.
The CSC, in its Resolution No. 98-0521 dated Ma...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 146053)
Facts:
Background of the Case
Petitioner Dioscoro F. Bacsin, a public school teacher at Pandan Elementary School in Camiguin Province, was charged with Grave Misconduct for allegedly sexually harassing AAA, an elementary school student. The incident occurred on August 16, 1995, when AAA claimed that petitioner asked her to his office, held her hand, and fondled her breast five times. AAA testified that she felt afraid during the incident. A classmate, Vincent B. Sorrabas, corroborated her account.
Formal Charge and Defense
Petitioner was formally charged with Misconduct by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on February 12, 1996. In his defense, petitioner argued that the touching was accidental and occurred while he was handing AAA a lesson book. He claimed the incident lasted only two to three seconds and that AAA left without complaint.
CSC Resolution
The CSC, in Resolution No. 98-0521 dated March 11, 1998, found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual Harassment) under Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) and dismissed him from service. His motion for reconsideration was denied in Resolution No. 99-0273 dated January 28, 1999.
Court of Appeals Decision
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the CSC's decision. The CA ruled that petitioner was afforded due process and that the evidence supported the finding of Grave Misconduct.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Sufficiency of Charge
The formal charge need not be drafted with the precision of a criminal information. What matters is that the respondent is apprised of the substance of the charge. Petitioner was informed of the acts complained of, which constituted sexual harassment under RA 7877.Grave Misconduct vs. Simple Misconduct
Grave Misconduct involves intentional wrongdoing, corruption, or flagrant disregard of established rules. Petitioner's act of fondling a student was a deliberate violation of RA 7877 and constituted Grave Misconduct, not mere Simple Misconduct.Penalty of Dismissal
Under the CSC Rules, Grave Misconduct warrants dismissal for the first offense. The penalty imposed was consistent with the law and the gravity of the offense.Due Process
Due process in administrative proceedings requires an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner was given this opportunity and failed to refute the charges effectively.
The Court emphasized that a teacher who sexually harasses a student violates the trust placed in them and is unfit to remain in the profession.