FLORIAN R. GAOIRAN v. HON. ANGEL C. ALCALA, ET AL.

GR No. 150178 444 SCRA 428 26 NOVEMBER 2004

Call!o, S"., #.$
FACTS$
On October 29, 1997, a letter-complaint was filed with CHED against Florian aoiran !petitioner", Head
#eacher $$$ in the High %chool Department of the &ngadanan &gro-$nd'strial College !&&$C", a state-
s'per(ised school in &ngadanan, $sabela) Edmond *) Castille+o, &dministrati(e Officer $$ of the same school,
charged petitioner of ma'ling him while he was performing his d'ties) &ppended to the letter-complaint were
the (erified criminal complaint filed b, Castille+o against petitioner and the sworn statements of his witnesses)
#he criminal complaint for assa'lt to a person in a'thorit, was filed with the *'nicipal Circ'it #rial Co'rt of
&ngadanan-%an 'illermo)
#he letter-complaint was referred to the -egal &ffairs %er(ice of the CHED) &tt,) Felina %) Dasig, then
O$C of the Office of the Director $$$, -egal &ffairs %er(ice, cond'cted a fact-finding in(estigation on the
ma'ling incident) &fter the fact-finding in(estigation was terminated, and 'pon finding of a prima facie case
against the petitioner for gra(e miscond'ct and cond'ct pre+'dicial to the best interest of the ser(ice, &tt,) Dasig
iss'ed the Formal Charge and Order of .re(enti(e %'spension dated /'l, 27, 1990)
#he petitioner did not s'bmit his written co'nter-affida(it or answer to the charges against him) $nstead,
he filed with the 1#C of Ca'a,an, $sabela, 2ranch 23, a petition for certiorari and prohibition to restrain
enforcement of the pre(enti(e s'spension order) Ha(ing ser(ed the s'spension, the case was dismissed for being
moot and academic) .etitioner then so'ght reconsideration of the formal charge and pre(enti(e s'spension
order, contending that the letter-complaint was not 'nder oath and that he was not informed nor apprised of the
complaint against him)
/oel 4oltaire 4) *a,o, who was later appointed Director of the -egal &ffairs %er(ice of CHED, iss'ed a
1esol'tion dated Febr'ar, 23, 1999, dismissing the administrati(e complaint against the petitioner on the
gro'nd that the letter-complaint was not 'nder oath) Howe(er, Hon) &ngel C) &lcala, then Chairman of CHED,
'naware of the e5istence of *a,o6s resol'tion, iss'ed another 1esol'tion dated /'ne 7, 1999, finding petitioner
g'ilt, of gra(e miscond'ct and cond'ct pre+'dicial to the best interest of the ser(ice) .etitioner was dismissed
form ser(ice)
.etitioner then filed with the 1#C of Ca'a,an, $sabela, 2ranch 23, a petition for certiorari, prohibition
and in+'nction) He alleged gra(e ab'se of discretion on the part of &lcala in iss'ing the 1esol'tion despite that a
pre(io's 1esol'tion alread, dismissed the administrati(e complaint against him) #he 1#C sided with the
petitioner and declared the 1esol'tion of &lcala n'll and (oid)
On appeal, the C& re(ersed and set aside the decision of 1#C) $t declared as (alid &lcala6s 1esol'tion)
Hence, this petition for re(iew)
#he petitioner contin'o'sl, arg'ed that the letter-complaint is ine5istent beca'se it was not made 'nder
oath and does not contain a certification of non-for'm shopping) .etitioner cites %ection 2, 1'le 8$4 of the
Omnib's 1'les $mplementing 2oo9 4 of EO :o) 292 and %ection ;!d" of Ci(il %er(ice Commission 1esol'tion
:o) 9;-3<21 !=niform 1'les of .roced're in the Cond'ct of &dministrati(e -egislation") Hence, the formal
charge and order of pre(enti(e s'spension stemming from it is li9ewise n'll and (oid)
ISS%E$ >hether or not the letter-complaint sho'ld be deemed ine5istent as it was not made 'nder oath)
HEL&$
#he Co'rt is not pers'aded) #he pertinent pro(isions go(erning the initiation of administrati(e
complaints against ci(il ser(ice officials or emplo,ees are pro(ided in 2oo9 4 of EO :o) 292, %ections ;? !c"
and ;0 !1" and !2", Chapter ?, %'btitle &) $t m'st be pointed o't that, while the letter-complaint was not (erified,
appended thereto were the (erified criminal complaint that Castille+o filed against the petitioner, as well as the
sworn statements of his witnesses) #hese doc'ments co'ld (er, well be considered as constit'ting the complaint
against the petitioner) $n fact, this Co'rt, thro'gh the Co'rt &dministrator, in(estigates and ta9es cogni@ance of,
not onl, 'n(erified, b't also e(en anon,mo's complaints filed against co'rt emplo,ees or officials for
(iolations of the Code of Ethical Cond'ct) $t is not totall, 'ncommon that a go(ernment is gi(en wide latit'de
in the scope and e5ercise of its in(estigati(e powers) &dministrati(e proceedings, technical r'les of proced're
and e(idence are not strictl, applied)
$n an, case, the letter-complaint of Castille+o is not a AcomplaintB within the meaning of the pro(isions
cited) #he letter-complaint did not b, itself commence the administrati(e proceedings against the petitioner) $t
merel, triggered a fact-finding in(estigation b, CHED) #he Co'rt cannot 'phold the petitioner6s contention as
it wo'ld res'lt to an abs'rd and restricti(e interpretation of EO :o) 292) $t was the formal charge and order of
pre(enti(e s'spension filed b, &tt,) Dasig that constit'ted the complaint) &tt,) Dasig signed the formal charge
in her capacit, as the O$C) &s the complaint was initiated b, the appropriate disciplining a'thorit, 'nder EO
:o) 292, the same need not be s'bscribed and sworn to) :either is it reC'ired that the same contain a
(erification of non-for'm shopping) /'risdiction was properl, acC'ired o(er the case)
.etition is denied)