G.R. No. 106498 - Dadubo vs. Civil Service Commission

Case Summary (G.R. No. 106498)

Factual Background

On August 13, 1987, three withdrawals, each for P60,000.00, and a subsequent withdrawal for P40,000.00, were presented for payment from Savings Account No. 87-692 in the name of Eric Tiu, Edgar Tiu, and/or Pilar Tiu. An authorized representative, Erlinda Veloso, presented an undated withdrawal slip that morning. Petitioner Dadubo, acting as teller, prepared the ticket and voucher, initialed the withdrawal slip, ticket and voucher, and passed the documents to Cash Supervisor Rosario B. Cidro. The documents were processed by accountant Reynaldo Dorado and bookkeeper/posting machine operator Apolinario Babaylon, who allegedly posted one withdrawal but failed to post another because the passbook was not presented. After banking hours a second withdrawal was presented and processed as an ABH withdrawal. The following day a third P60,000.00 withdrawal and a P40,000.00 withdrawal were presented. Veloso signed to acknowledge receipt of P40,000.00 only, leaving P60,000.00 unaccounted for.

Administrative Proceedings at the DBP

The Development Bank of the Philippines conducted formal investigations and found that petitioner changed the date entry on the subsidiary ledger card and that a P60,000.00 balance remained unaccounted for and directly imputable to Dadubo. DBP found Dadubo guilty of dishonesty for embezzlement of bank funds and dismissed her from the service. Cidro was found guilty of gross neglect of duty and fined an amount equivalent to one month basic salary, payable by salary deductions.

Proceedings Before the MSPB and the CSC

Petitioner appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which affirmed DBP's dismissal in a decision dated February 28, 1990. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Civil Service Commission. In Resolution No. 91-642 dated May 21, 1991, the CSC reduced Dadubo's penalty to suspension for six months, reasoning that the most that could be charged against her was willful violation of office regulations for unauthorized reconciliation and that Cidro bore responsibility for the ABH withdrawal. DBP moved for reconsideration. On July 16, 1992, the CSC, acting favorably on the motion, promulgated Resolution No. 92-878, which affirmed DBP's findings of guilt against Dadubo and treated her admission that she altered dates on the ledger as an admission of wrongdoing. The CSC considered the admission mitigating but offset it with the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of official position and emphasized that Dadubo was unauthorized to reconcile subsidiary ledger cards.

Petitioner's Contentions

Petitioner contended that CSC Resolution No. 92-878 failed to comply with the constitutional requirement to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which the decision was based. She asserted that Resolution No. 92-878 conflicted with the factual findings of CSC Resolution No. 91-642. She alleged that the Commission overlooked or disregarded salient, undisputed facts and that the resolution rested on speculation, surmise and conjecture. Petitioner also challenged the admissibility and the weight of certain affidavits used against her.

Government's Response and Procedural Defenses

The Solicitor General argued that CSC Resolution No. 92-878 did not need to restate fully the factual and legal bases already explained in CSC-MSPB No. 497 and that petitioner had admitted changing ledger dates, an admission that, together with other evidence, established her guilt. The Government further argued that the affidavit of Albert C. Ballicud was inadmissible because he was not subjected to cross-examination. The Solicitor General invoked the settled rule that administrative findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are controlling on judicial review and that reversal is warranted only upon proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Court considered whether CSC Resolution No. 92-878 suffered from grave abuse of discretion, whether petitioner was denied due process, whether the Civil Service Commission was required to comply with the constitutional dictates of the first paragraph of Art. VIII, Sec. 14 in the same manner as courts of justice, and whether the administrative findings of embezzlement were supported by substantial evidence and free from reliance on inadmissible proof or speculation.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Court dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Civil Service Commission. The Court held that the administrative findings were supported by evidence and that the Commission acted within its discretion in resolving DBP's motion for reconsideration. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the established standards that findings of fact by administrative bodies are controlling if based on substantial evidence and that appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for that of administrative agencies on issues of credibility and sufficiency of evidence, citing Jaculina v. National Police Commission, Biak-na-Bato Mining Co. v. Tanco, Jr., and Doruelo v. Ministry of National Defense. The Court applied precedents holding that administrative decisions are entitled to respect and may be set aside only for grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law, citing Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Garcia and related authorities. The Court explained that the standard of due process in administrative tribunals allows some latitude provided elemental fairness is observed and that petitioner had multiple opportunities to be heard at

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 106498)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Lolita A. Dadubo was the petitioner and Senior Accounts Analyst at the Development Bank of the Philippines, Borongan Branch.
Civil Service Commission and Development Bank of the Philippines were the respondents in the administrative proceedings.
The Development Bank of the Philippines dismissed the petitioner for dishonesty and embezzlement of bank funds.
The petitioner appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board which affirmed the DBP dismissal.
The Civil Service Commission initially reduced the penalty to six months suspension in Resolution No. 91-642 and later, upon motion for reconsideration, promulgated Resolution No. 92-878 affirming DBP’s original findings.
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court challenging CSC Resolution No. 92-878.

Key Factual Allegations

The case arose from reports of an unposted withdrawal of P 60,000.00 from Savings Account No. 87-692 in the names of members of the Tiu family.
On the morning of August 13, 1987, an authorized representative presented an undated withdrawal slip for P 60,000.00 which was processed and paid to the representative.
A second withdrawal for P 60,000.00 was processed after banking hours on August 13, 1987, with posting initials but no actual posting because the passbook was not presented.
On August 14, 1987, a third withdrawal slip for P 60,000.00 was presented and processed, and a subsequent undated withdrawal slip for P 40,000.00 was also presented and purportedly paid on the same day.
The petitioner claimed she disbursed P 100,000.00 covering the third P 60,000.00 and the P 40,000.00 withdrawals, while the recipient testified she received only P 40,000.00 and signed the withdrawal slip indicating P 40,000.00 received.
The remaining P 60,000.00 was unaccounted for and was directly imputed to the petitioner.

Charges and Administrative Proceedings

The DBP administratively charged the petitioner and her cash supervisor with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The DBP found the petitioner guilty of dishonesty for embezzlement of bank funds and imposed dismissal from the service.
The cash supervisor was found guilty of gross neglect of duty and was fined an amount equivalent to one month’s basic salary.
The MSPB affirmed the DBP decision as a necessary consequence of the evidence.
The CSC reversed and reduced the petitioner’s penalty in Resolution No. 91-642 but, upon DBP’s motion for reconsideration, issued Resolution No. 92-878 reinstating DBP’s findings of guilt.

Evidence and Findings

The petitioner admitted changing date entries on the subsidiary ledger card from August 13 to August 14 during her reconciliation despite being unauthorized to do so.
The ledger and passbook bore initials indicating posting by the posting machine operator even though the passbook had not been presented for one withdrawal.
The recipient’s signed acknowledgment reflected receipt of P 40,000.00, leaving P 60,000.00 unreconciled.
An affidavit of Albert C. Ballicud was excluded from evidence because the affiant was not subjected to cross-examination.
An acting Internal Audit Officer’s opinion was considered preliminary and not conclusive in light of other convincing evidence.
The MSPB found that the petitioner manipulate