Case Summary (G.R. No. 132164)
Key Dates
March–June 1994: Inspection visits and alleged sexual advances by respondent
October 4, 1994: Preventive suspension of respondent
January 9, 1995: DECS Joint Decision dismissing respondent
September 23, 1996 & April 11, 1997: CSC Resolutions affirming and modifying administrative penalties
January 8, 1998: Court of Appeals Decision reversing CSC and dismissing Gapuz complaint
October 19, 2004: Supreme Court Decision under review
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision)
Rule 132, Sec. 11, Revised Rules on Evidence (impeachment of witnesses by reputation for truthfulness)
Rule 130, Sec. 51(a)(3), Revised Rules on Evidence (character evidence in criminal cases)
Executive Order No. 292, Book V, Rule XIV, Sec. 22 (classification of administrative offenses)
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule IV, Sec. 53 (mitigating and aggravating circumstances)
Factual Background
Magdalena Gapuz applied in March 1994 for a DECS permit to operate a preschool. During a June 1994 premises inspection, respondent allegedly embraced her, placed his arm around her shoulders, kissed her cheek, and later asked her out. Fearful for her permit and personal safety, she reported the incident only after her application stalled. Ligaya Annawi separately alleged multiple instances of sexual harassment and administrative malfeasances by respondent.
Procedural History
DECS conducted a joint administrative investigation and, on January 9, 1995, found respondent guilty of four counts of sexual indignities against Annawi and two counts against Gapuz, ordering his dismissal. On appeal, the CSC on September 23, 1996, affirmed guilt for Gapuz’s complaint (grave misconduct) but dismissed Annawi’s charges; on April 11, 1997, it denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC, holding Gapuz an unreliable witness due to her prior litigations and reinstated respondent. The CSC petitioned for review.
Issue
Whether Magdalena Gapuz’s past complaints and alleged misconduct constitute admissible character evidence that sufficiently impeaches her credibility in an administrative sexual harassment proceeding.
Credibility and Character Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
Under Rule 132, Sec. 11, a party-witness may be impeached by evidence of bad reputation for truthfulness, honesty, or integrity, but not by proof of particular wrongful acts. Rule 130, Sec. 51(a)(3) allows character evidence in criminal cases only when it bears on the probability of the offense charged; it does not extend to administrative disciplinary proceedings. A complainant’s previous convictions—not mere charges—may bear on credibility if relevant to truthfulness.
Evaluation of Gapuz’s Reputation Evidence
Most of Gapuz’s cited cases date from 1978 to 1987, a period remote from the 1994 incidents. Evidence of reputation must pertain to the time of trial or just prior, not a decade earlier. Moreover, respondent offered no proof that any of these cases resulted in convictions; unproven charges do not legally impair a witness’s credibility. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals erred in heavily relying on remote and unadjudicated allegations to discredit Gapuz.
Corroboration and Substantive Findings
Gapuz’s testimony was detailed, consistent, and corroborated by Assistant Superintendent Peter Ngabit, who testified that she reported the stolen kiss and date proposition shortly after it occurred. The DECS investigators observed her demeanour and found her credible. The Supreme Court accorded substantial evidence to these findings, noting that a witness of bad character may still testify truthfully and that firsthand testimony with consistent detail supports credibility.
Legal Characterization of Respondent’s Conduct
Sexual advances made by a public officer in t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 132164)
Facts of the Case
- Two separate complaints were filed in 1994 against Dr. Allyson Belagan, Superintendent of DECS–Baguio Division:
• Magdalena Gapuz (founder/directress of Mother and Child Learning Center) alleged sexual indignities and harassment during a school‐permit inspection.
• Ligaya Annawi (public school teacher) accused him of repeated sexual harassment and administrative malfeasances. - Gapuz’s sworn complaint detailed a stolen kiss on a stair landing, a follow‐up date request, and eventual reporting to Assistant Superintendent Peter Ngabit.
- Annawi’s complaint charged four occasions of unwanted touching and multiple instances of dereliction of duty (salary delays, withheld allowances, failure to convene promotion board).
Procedural History
- January 9, 1995: DECS Secretary’s Joint Decision found Belagan guilty of six counts of sexual advances or indignities and ordered his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits.
- September 23, 1996 (CSC Res. No. 966213): Civil Service Commission affirmed the DECS ruling as to Gapuz’s complaint (grave misconduct) but dismissed Annawi’s charge.
- April 11, 1997 (CSC Res. No. 972423): CSC denied Belagan’s motion for reconsideration, holding Gapuz’s character of minor significance in judging his guilt.
- January 8, 1998: Court of Appeals (CA–G.R. SP No. 44180) reversed both CSC Resolutions, set them aside, dismissed Gapuz’s complaint for lack of credible evidence, and ordered Belagan’s reinstatement.
- October 19, 2004: The Supreme Court granted the CSC’s petition for certiorari, reviewed factual and legal issues, and rendered the present decision.
Issues Presented
- Can Magdalena Gapuz’s past record of complaints and cases be used to impeach her credibility in an administrative sexual harassment proceeding?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in disregarding the DECS and CSC’s factual findin