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.
Font Size:

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.