Case Digest (G.R. No. 174312)
Facts:
The case revolves around Captain Ernesto S. Caballero, who served as the Commander of the Internal Affairs and Service Headquarters Group of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG). In August 2002, Dr. Jennifer Liwanag, a civilian dentist employed by the PCG, filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. Dr. Liwanag alleged that in February 2002, while waiting for treatment at the PCG dental detachment, Captain Caballero made inappropriate physical advances towards her, including touching her thighs and attempting to kiss her. Following the incident, Dr. Liwanag reported the matter to Lieutenant Rodolfo S. Ingel, Jr., who dismissed her concerns. The complaint was subsequently referred to the Office of the Coast Guard Judge Advocate (OCGJA) for investigation. Despite being subpoenaed, Captain Caballero did not appear to defend himself, claiming that the OCGJA was not the appropriate body for the investigation. The investigation proceeded based on Dr. Liwanag's evidence, leadin...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 174312)
Facts:
Background of the Case
The case involves Capt. Ernesto S. Caballero, a Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) officer, who was accused of sexual harassment by Dr. Jennifer Liwanag, a civilian dentist employed by the PCG. The incident allegedly occurred in February 2002 at the PCG Dental Detachment in Manila.Allegations of Sexual Harassment
Dr. Liwanag alleged that Capt. Caballero touched her thighs and later forcibly kissed her in the locker room. She filed a formal complaint, which was referred to the Office of the Coast Guard Judge Advocate (OCGJA). Despite being subpoenaed, Caballero failed to appear and instead questioned the jurisdiction of the OCGJA.Administrative Proceedings
The OCGJA recommended that Caballero be tried before the Philippine Coast Guard Efficiency and Separation Board (PCG-ESB) for misconduct. The PCG-ESB was created under DOTC Department Order No. 2000-61 and was tasked with handling administrative cases involving PCG personnel.RTC Decision
Caballero filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ruled in his favor. The RTC declared the PCG-ESB proceedings null and void, stating that the PCG-ESB lacked jurisdiction over the case.CA Decision
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, holding that the PCG-ESB had jurisdiction over Caballero's case. The CA ruled that the PCG, though no longer part of the military, retained a distinct administrative disciplinary system for its uniformed personnel.
Issue:
Jurisdiction of the PCG-ESB
Whether the PCG-ESB has jurisdiction to conduct administrative disciplinary proceedings against Capt. Caballero, given that the PCG is no longer part of the military.Applicability of Military Law
Whether the PCG uniformed personnel are still covered by military law on administrative discipline, despite the PCG's transfer to the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC).Bias of the PCG-ESB
Whether the members of the PCG-ESB exhibited bias against Caballero, which would oust them of jurisdiction.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied Caballero's petition and upheld the CA decision. The Court ruled that:
Jurisdiction of the PCG-ESB
The PCG-ESB has jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary proceedings involving PCG uniformed personnel. The PCG, though civilian in character, retains a distinct administrative disciplinary system for its uniformed personnel.Applicability of Military Law
The PCG uniformed personnel are not covered by civil service rules but are subject to a unique disciplinary system under the DOTC. The PCG-ESB's procedures, though similar to military rules, do not make the PCG a military organization.No Bias on the Part of the PCG-ESB
There was no evidence of bias or prejudice on the part of the PCG-ESB members. Public officers are presumed to act regularly in the performance of their duties.
Ratio:
Distinct Disciplinary System for PCG Uniformed Personnel
The PCG, as a civilian agency under the DOTC, has a unique administrative disciplinary system for its uniformed personnel. This system is distinct from the civil service rules applicable to non-uniformed employees.Authority of the DOTC
The DOTC, through its administrative supervision over the PCG, has the authority to create and regulate the PCG-ESB. The PCG-ESB's jurisdiction and procedures are valid and lawful.No Judicial Legislation
The Court emphasized that it cannot interfere with the legislative process. Until Congress enacts laws altering the PCG's disciplinary system, the PCG-ESB's jurisdiction and procedures must be respected.Presumption of Regularity
The findings of administrative bodies, such as the PCG-ESB, are entitled to respect and are not subject to review unless there is clear evidence of bias or irregularity.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the PCG-ESB over administrative disciplinary cases involving PCG uniformed personnel. The PCG, though civilian in character, maintains a distinct disciplinary system for its uniformed personnel, separate from the civil service rules applicable to other government employees. The Court found no evidence of bias on the part of the PCG-ESB and affirmed its authority to conduct administrative proceedings against Capt. Caballero.