G.R. No. 7988 - Young Men's Christian Association of Manila vs. Collector of Internal Revenue

Delia T. Cortez, Chief Personnel Specialist of the Examination and Placement Services Division (EPSD) at CSRO No. X, was charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The allegations centered on her involvement in the unauthorized sale of examination fee stamps intended for official use.

On June 26, 1998, two teenagers (June Grace Abina and Rubielyn Ofredo) went to the CSRO No. X to file application forms for the Career Service Professional Examination on behalf of their aunt and her colleagues.
The applicants were directed from the Cashier’s Office to the EPSD for stamp approval.
Respondent allegedly pasted a stamp worth P150.00 on each application form and demanded payment from the teenagers.
When the teenagers later returned to the Cashier’s Office, discrepancies in the serial numbers of the stamps were observed, prompting a confrontation between the cashier and respondent.
In response, respondent removed the stamps from the forms, kept the stamps, and later returned the money to the cashier who arranged for new stamps to be issued.

Witnesses Abina and Ofredo filed a joint-affidavit asserting that respondent was responsible for stamping the forms, collecting money (P900), and later facilitating a confrontation with the cashier.
Testimonies of Eva S. Alcalde (clerk) and Acting Cashier Angeline P. Lim corroborated the account, noting:

The stamps on the forms bore serial numbers that did not match those currently issued by the Cashier’s Office.
A confrontation ensued during which respondent attempted to justify her actions and later removed the stamps.

Respondent’s counter-affidavit denied the allegations, maintaining that the application forms were initially stamped correctly and accusing others of fabricating the charges.

A 90-day preventive suspension was imposed pending a formal investigation.
Through evidence evaluation, the CSC ruled in Resolution No. 010499 (22 February 2001) that respondent was guilty of illegally selling recycled stamps for personal gain.

The CSC imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits and additional disqualifications, although it provided that civil or criminal liabilities might still be pursued.
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the penalty was denied by the CSC.

Respondent filed a petition for review (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65096) invoking:

Violation of administrative due process.
The argument that the imposed dismissal was too harsh considering her long service (21 years) and that it was her first offense.

Acknowledged that respondent was accorded due process (allowed to file an answer, counter-affidavit, and motion for reconsideration).
Held that, given mitigating circumstances, the dismissal penalty was excessively harsh.
Modified the penalty from dismissal to forced resignation with entitlement to all benefits under the law.

The CSC, as petitioner, sought to reverse the Court of Appeals’ modification.
The central issue raised before the Supreme Court was whether a penalty lesser than dismissal was justified despite respondent’s long service and her being a first-time offender.

Whether the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent is too harsh when considering:

Whether respondent was accorded proper administrative due process in the proceedings, given that she was allowed to file an answer, counter-affidavit, and motion for reconsideration.

Whether the mitigating circumstances of length of service and first offense can warrant a penalty lesser than dismissal, considering the gravity of the offense.