Case Summary (G.R. No. 172776)
Factual Background
Atty. Felina S. Dasig served as the Chief Education Program Specialist at the CHED and previously held the position of officer-in-charge of its Legal Affairs Service. In October 1998, several complaints were lodged claiming that Dasig attempted to extort money from students seeking corrections in their academic records. The complaints were supported by sworn affidavits from the students and staff, indicating that Dasig solicited fees under false pretenses related to their requests.
Administrative Proceedings
Following the complaints, the CHED established a hearing committee to investigate the allegations against Dasig. Although some complainants could not attend the hearings, several staff members confirmed that Dasig solicited money from students and facilitated clandestine discussions about using the funds for personal benefits. In response to the charges, Dasig submitted a memorandum and a counter-affidavit, flatly denying any misconduct and alleging that the CHED lacked the authority to handle name corrections.
Findings and Initial Outcomes
The hearing committee ultimately found substantial evidence to hold Dasig liable for dishonest conduct and recommended her dismissal. The CHED affirmed this recommendation, citing gross misconduct and dishonesty. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) upheld this decision when Dasig sought reconsideration, asserting that she was guilty of insubordination and acts prejudicial to the service.
Court of Appeals and Disbarment Proceedings
Dasig, dissatisfied with the CSC's ruling, appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising issues, including due process violations and claims of an absolution from any liability by CHED Chairman Angel Alcala. During this time, the Supreme Court resolved to disbar Dasig for gross misconduct while outlining that her actions used her public office for personal gain.
Court of Appeals' Distinction
In a separate assessment, the Court of Appeals interpreted Dasig's actions as “moonlighting,” asserting that soliciting fees constituted simple misconduct rather than grave offenses. The appellate court was less stringent regarding Dasig's behavior compared to the Supreme Court's findings, where her conduct was classified as gross misconduct.
Supreme Court's Review
The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found significant discrepancies between the Court of Appeals' findings and the established facts from the disbarment proceedings. The appellate court's interpretation was deemed erroneous as it contradicted the conclusions drawn earlier by the Supre
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 172776)
Case Overview
- This case involves a Rule 45 petition for review filed by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) against Atty. Felina S. Dasig.
- The petition seeks to challenge the 15 September 2003 Decision and the 18 May 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61302.
- The Court of Appeals had previously ruled on Dasig's administrative liability regarding allegations of misconduct during her tenure at CHED.
Factual Background
- Felina Dasig served as the Chief Education Program Specialist at CHED and was the officer-in-charge of the Legal Affairs Service (LAS).
- On 9 October 1998, a memorandum was submitted to CHED detailing several complaints against Dasig, which included sworn affidavits from students and staff alleging that she solicited money for legal services related to the correction of their academic records.
- The complaints were from Rosalie Dela Torre, Rocella Eje, Jacqueline Ng, and several CHED staff members, who claimed Dasig demanded money under the pretense of attorney's fees.
Allegations Against Dasig
- The students claimed that Dasig attempted to extort money from them for favorable action on their requests for correction of academic records.
- Dasig's former staff corroborated these allegations, stating that she attempted to persuade them to engage in these activities and also refused to return an Official Record Book borrowed from another staff member.
- In response, Dasig denied all allegations, arguing that the requests for name changes were outside CHED's authorit