RENATO G. TOBILLO, PETITIONER, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND HON. EMILIO S. DE QUIROS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, RESPONDENTS.

Tobillo versus Social Security System

The Case

This is a petition for review filed by Renato G. Tobillo against the Social Security System and its President and Chief Executive Officer, arising from the decision of the Civil Service Commission dismissing him from the government service for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the government. The case matters because it is a compact illustration of two things every examinee must hold: the deference the Supreme Court gives to the factual findings of administrative agencies in their field of specialized expertise, and the treatment of an employee who personally receives contributions payable to the System and fails to remit them.

Procedural History

The Civil Service Commission, in its decision in Case No. 140824, found Tobillo guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the government, and dismissed him from the government service. Tobillo then filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court. The Court, upon scrutiny of the petition and the Commission's decision, found the petition patently without merit and dismissed it outright.

Facts

Tobillo served as an Acting Accounts Officer of the Social Security System, an employee of the System for more than twelve years. On two separate occasions he received funds payable or deliverable to the System from a certain Garachico, supposedly to be remitted as Garachico's employer's contribution for the months of April to September 2006. He admitted receiving 1,893 pesos on September 13, 2006 and 1,892 pesos on November 8, 2006.

Tobillo likewise admitted that he failed to remit the amount covering Garachico's contributions for the months of July to September 2006, because he lent the money to his friend Bernie. He knew from the very beginning that it was not within his duties and responsibilities to collect or receive contributions on behalf of the System, yet he received them not once but twice.

On these facts the Civil Service Commission found him liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the government, and dismissed him from the service. Hence his petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the findings of the Civil Service Commission, an administrative agency acting within its field of specialized expertise, should be respected and left undisturbed by the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not Tobillo's act of receiving, without authority, contributions payable to the Social Security System and failing to remit them constitutes grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the government.
• Whether or not the petition for review should be dismissed outright for being patently without merit.

Applicable Provisions

Section 28, paragraph (g) of Republic Act No. 8282, the Social Security Law, provides:

Section 28. Penal Clause. - xxx.

The Court cites this penal clause as the law Tobillo violated when he collected and received contributions from a member without authority, and it anchors the finding that his acts were prohibited by law.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that findings of administrative agencies, such as the Civil Service Commission, in their fields of specialized expertise are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear and indubitable showing that they overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance. No such showing was made. The petitioner's contentions were practically a rehash of matters already passed upon, and the Commission acted correctly and in accordance with law.

On the second issue, the Court held that Tobillo committed acts prohibited by law, specifically Section 28, paragraph (g) of Republic Act No. 8282. As an Acting Accounts Officer and an employee of the System for more than twelve years, he is presumed to know that he is prohibited from collecting or receiving contributions from members. His act of receiving without valid authority on two separate occasions, knowing he was prohibited, is indicative of intent to violate the law, a flagrant disregard of established rule, and a blatant transgression of established conduct. His conduct tarnished the image and integrity of his public office, diminished the faith of the people in the System, and deprived members of the benefit of money that should have been remitted.

On the third issue, the Court stressed that under its rules for a petition for review, review is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, and the Court may dismiss the petition outright if it finds the same patently without merit. It did so here.

Doctrine

• Findings of administrative agencies in their fields of specialized expertise are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed absent a clear and indubitable showing that they overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied facts of weight and substance.
• An employee of the Social Security System who receives contributions payable to the System without authority, knowing he is prohibited from doing so, commits grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the government, and violates Section 28, paragraph (g) of Republic Act No. 8282.
• Review under Rule 43 is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion; a patently unmeritorious petition may be dismissed outright.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed outright the petition for review; Tobillo lost, and the Civil Service Commission's decision dismissing him from the government service stands.

Remember This

Memorize the line that administrative findings in an agency's field of specialized expertise command the highest respect absent a clear and indubitable showing of error. Examiners use this case on the deference owed to the Civil Service Commission and on the penal clause against unauthorized collection of Social Security System contributions.