Case Summary (G.R. No. 146053)
Key Dates
• August 16, 1995 – Alleged sexual harassment incident.
• February 12, 1996 – Formal charge of “Misconduct” filed by CSC Regional Director.
• March 11, 1998 – CSC Resolution No. 98-0521 finding grave misconduct; dismissal imposed.
• January 28, 1999 – CSC Resolution No. 99-0273 denying reconsideration.
• August 23, 2000 – Court of Appeals decision affirming CSC resolutions.
• March 30, 2009 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process guarantees).
• Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995), Sec. 3(b)(4).
• Omnibus Civil Service Rules, Rule IV, Sec. 52; Rule XIV, Sec. 23.
Facts of the Case
AAA, an elementary pupil, testified that petitioner summoned her to his office, retrieved a folder, asked her to approach, then deliberately fondled her breast five times, causing her fear. A classmate corroborated her account. Petitioner contended the contact was accidental while handing her a book, lasting two to three seconds, and that AAA made no complaint at the time.
Proceedings Before the Civil Service Commission
The CSC charged petitioner with grave misconduct for acts of sexual harassment under RA 7877. After hearing, it found substantial evidence that petitioner improperly touched AAA in a manner constituting sexual harassment and dismissed him from the public service. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
Under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner argued (1) exaggeration of an accidental incident, (2) lack of evidence for grave misconduct, and (3) irregularity in imposing dismissal. The CA held that petitioner was afforded due process, that evidence proved his guilt of grave misconduct, and that dismissal was a proper penalty.
Issues on Supreme Court Review
- Whether petitioner was validly charged with “Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual Harassment)” different from the formal charge of “Misconduct.”
- Whether the penalty of dismissal conforms to the Omnibus Civil Service Rules.
- Whether a lesser charge of misconduct can embrace the greater offense of grave misconduct.
Legal Analysis
• Charge Sufficiency: In administrative proceedings, precise labeling of the offense is not critical; what matters is that the respondent is informed of the acts complained of. Here, petitioner knew he was accused of improperly touching a student.
• Sexual Harassment: RA 7877 does not require an explicit demand for sexual favor; inappropriate touching alone may constitute harassment if it creates an intimidating or hostile environment. AAA’s testimony of fear satisfied this element.
• Grave vs. Simple Misconduct: Fondling a child violates RA 7877 and evinces delibe
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 146053)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Dioscoro F. Bacsin was a public elementary school teacher at Pandan Elementary School, Mambajao, Camiguin Province.
- Respondent Eduardo O. Wahiman is the father of AAA, one of petitioner’s students.
- AAA testified that on August 16, 1995, petitioner summoned her to his office to run an errand.
- Inside the office, petitioner retrieved a folder from a carton and placed it on his table, then asked AAA to come closer.
- Petitioner allegedly held AAA’s hand and fondled her breast five times, causing her fear.
- A classmate, Vincent B. Sorrabas, corroborated AAA’s account, claiming to have witnessed the incident.
Formal Charge and Petitioner’s Defense
- On February 12, 1996, Regional Director Vivencio N. Muego, Jr. of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) filed a Formal Charge against petitioner for “Misconduct.”
- In his defense, petitioner maintained that the contact was accidental as he handed AAA a lesson book.
- He further asserted the incident lasted only two to three seconds and that AAA left without complaint.
Civil Service Commission Resolutions
- Resolution No. 98-0521 (March 11, 1998):
- Found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual Harassment) under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.
- Imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service.
- Resolution No. 99-0273 (January 28, 1999):
- Denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, affirming the earlier dismissal.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Cou