Title
Court of Industrial Relations vs. Solidum
Case
A.M. No. P-269
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1975
A CIR hearing examiner was dismissed for indecent conduct during office hours; the Supreme Court upheld guilt but mitigated the penalty to forced resignation due to his long service.
government employee
disgraceful conduct
immoral conduct

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-269)

Factual Background: The February 14, 1974 Incident

The incidents leading to the charges were drawn from the testimony of the complaining witnesses, Dra. Adoracion Pascua and her niece Elizabeth Glorioso, a sixteen-year-old third year high school student. They testified during a preliminary inquiry conducted by Atty. Sofronio A. Ona of the CIR on February 15, 1974, and continued on February 19, 1974.

The witnesses stated that they lived at 1838 Oroquieta Street, with one of the CIR offices directly opposite their apartment. Between 8:00 and 8:30 in the morning of February 14, 1974, Elizabeth was cleaning the apartment room and looked out the window. She allegedly saw a man in the opposite office exposing and masturbating himself. Elizabeth was shocked and reported the incident to her aunt. Dra. Pascua then went up to the room to see what the man was doing, but she saw only the man’s hands dusting the window. She shouted at him, calling upon him to identify himself and warning that she would report him “sa itaas” (to the authorities).

Afterwards, Dra. Pascua went directly to the CIR office. She met Mr. Beltran and Mrs. Cacil, both CIR employees, who accompanied her to the room in question. The room turned out to be the office of the respondent, but the man was no longer there. The witnesses testified that respondent had earlier reported for work but had suddenly left the building.

Respondent’s Explanation: “Self-Treatment” for Urinary Tract Infection

Respondent did not deny the physical setting described in the complaint in the sense that he admitted that the acts were done in his office. Instead, he offered a medical and situational explanation. He stated that since December 1973 he had been suffering from a urinary tract infection and experienced intense pain and difficulty in urinating. He claimed that whenever he experienced pain, he applied a small towel soaked in hot water to his organ as part of “superficial massage,” which he described as “self-treatment.” He asserted that he performed this application inside his office because he found it difficult to do it in the comfort room. He further claimed that his condition did not improve and worsened.

For February 14, 1974, respondent asserted that he experienced the usual discomfort and that, because his self-treatment was not effective and the pain “spread out upward,” he decided to see a physician. He then hurriedly left his office and proceeded to the medical clinic of Dr. Giovanni Ong, who treated him for urinary tract infection. Respondent supported his explanation with medical certificates and records, including a medical certificate dated February 16, 1974 and a civil service form dated February 19, 1974, both issued by Dr. Ong, together with laboratory examination results, prescriptions, and receipts reflecting medical consultation and treatment beginning February 14, 1974. The record also reflected a letter regarding his selection as a delegate for a bar convention.

Filing and Administrative Proceedings Before Judge Paredes

On February 28, 1974, charges were brought against respondent by letter-complaint of then Acting Presiding Judge Ansberto P. Paredes for disgraceful and immoral conduct under Section 1(e) of Presidential Decree No. 6, and for violation of an Office Memorandum. The letter-complaint alleged five incidents: first, that respondent punched in and reported for work at 8:22 a.m. based on his daily time card; second, that at about 8:30 a.m., while inside his room, he exposed himself through the window and masturbated within the sight of Elizabeth Glorioso; third, that Elizabeth reported the incident to her aunt, who then shouted at respondent and later reported the matter to the Court; fourth, that respondent left the Court hurriedly without securing a duly accomplished permission slip; and fifth, that on previous occasions in January 1974, he had similarly exposed himself from the same room in the presence of Elizabeth by removing his clothes and showing his vital parts.

Respondent was required to answer. On March 4, 1974, he answered by specifically denying paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of the quoted allegations and requested a formal investigation. The complaint was assigned to Atty. Pedro F. Perez, Acting Assistant Chief Hearing Examiner. After an investigation, Atty. Perez submitted a report stating that the charges were “established by sufficient evidence.”

Based on the investigator’s findings, Judge Paredes rendered a decision on April 24, 1974 approving and adopting the report and ordering respondent’s dismissal from the service. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on May 24, 1974.

The Issues Raised on Appeal

On appeal, respondent invoked the Court’s supervisory authority. He framed his Statement of Issues around whether the complainant presented sufficient evidence; whether the stenographic transcripts dated February 15 and 19, 1974 could be considered evidence; whether the witnesses were fictitious; whether the transcripts were fictitious; and whether the identity of the respondent was established in the transcripts. Respondent also contended that at the formal hearing on March 19, 1974, the complainant and witnesses did not appear to testify against him, and that respondent was allegedly not present during the earlier inquiries conducted by Atty. Ona. He argued that he was not afforded an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witnesses.

Respondent’s Contentions and the Court’s Assessment of Evidence

Respondent asserted that the complainant failed to present evidence because the complainant’s witnesses did not testify at the March 19 hearing. He further claimed that the stenographic transcripts were not properly identified by either the stenographers or the hearing officer, and that he was not present during the preliminary inquiry, so he could not confront the witnesses. He also concluded that the witnesses and transcripts were fictitious.

The Court rejected those contentions. It noted that the record showed that Dra. Pascua and Elizabeth testified under oath during the preliminary hearing conducted by Atty. Ona on February 15 and 19, 1974. The preliminary testimony was summarized in a letter by Judge Paredes informing respondent of the existence of a prima facie case and requiring him to answer. The Court also found that while respondent initially made general denials, he offered an explanation of the incident in both his answer and his testimony before the investigator, Atty. Perez, on March 19.

The Court held it could not comprehend respondent’s argument that there was no evidence of immoral conduct because respondent’s own explanation, including his admission that he exposed himself as part of self-treatment, demonstrated that the act alleged in the charge was not wholly without evidentiary support. It also considered respondent’s explanation that the act was misunderstood or misconstrued by those who saw him.

On the matter of confrontation and cross-examination, the Court relied on the investigator’s report and the stenographic transcript of March 19, 1974, which showed that when the case was called on March 19 at 9:00 a.m., respondent appeared. Atty. Perez informed him that Dra. Pascua requested postponement to March 21 because Elizabeth had an examination on March 19 and could not appear. Respondent was advised that the hearing was called to afford him the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witnesses on their preliminary testimony, and he was shown the transcripts of their testimonies. Respondent remarked he was not present during the preliminary hearing and stated there was no further need to cross-examine. Atty. Perez then explained that this meant respondent was waiving the right to cross-examine and would proceed with documentary evidence. Respondent did not protest or object. Instead, he proceeded to present his own evidence.

The Court held that if confrontation and cross-examination were not conducted, it was due to respondent’s own inaction. It characterized confrontation and cross-examination as personal rights that must be asserted, and that may be waived expressly or impliedly through conduct inconsistent with demanding the right.

Rejection of the “Fictitious Witnesses” Claim

The Court found respondent’s assertion that the witnesses and transcripts were fictitious to be unsupported. It observed that respondent offered no explanation during the investigation suggesting that he was being harassed with trumped-up charges or that the witnesses were fabricated. It further noted that when respondent was asked during the March 19 hearing whether he knew Dra. Pascua and Elizabeth, he admitted he did not know them personally but acknowledged that he was aware of people living in the apartment across his office and that he saw persons there but did not “mind them.”

The Court treated respondent’s choice to present evidence and close the investigation as an indication that he sought to avoid direct confrontation with the witnesses. It therefore found the “fictitious persons” argument to be without merit.

Nature of Administrative Investigations and Lack of Formal Offering

Respondent also argued that there was no formal presentation of the complainant’s evidence at the March 19 hearing. The Court rejected this as well. It recognized that the March 19 transcript did not show a formal offering of evidence, as would typically occur in strictly judicial proceedings. Nevertheless, it held that the stenographic transcripts of the witnesses’ testimonies taken on February 15 and 19 were already made part of the administrative record and were presented to respondent for examination and verification. The Court emphasized that respondent did not submit any formal objection before presenting his evidence.

The Court invoked the principle that technical rules of court practice, procedure, and evidence are not applied with rigidity in administrative proceedings. It also noted that ad

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms