EVELYN O. MARINDUQUE, PETITIONER, VS. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, AND THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENTS.
GONZALES-SISON, M., J.:
Briefly, the facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as follows:
The case stemmed from accusation of supposed irregularities allegedly perpetrated by the officers and employees of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) within the confines of Diosdado Macapagal International Airport (DMIA)[2]. One of the those accused of misdeed is herein petitioner Evelyn O. Marinduque (petitioner) then an Immigration Officer II at the DMIA until her termination from service. More specifically, petitioner together with the other employees and officers of the BI were charged and suspended for 90 days by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Dishonesty and Gross Neglect of Duty under Section 52 of the Revised Union Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS). The accusatory portion of the Formal Charge dated 16 July 2010 reads:
“Sometime during the period of May to July 2008, you, as officers and employees of the Bureau of Immigration assigned at the Diosdado Macapagal International Airport (DMIA), in conspiracy with, and mutually helping one another, and in gross violation of your oath of office, facilitated illegal transactions at the DMIA by escorting and assisting passengers of illegal recruiters, allowing OFWs without E6 visas to leave the country without the required overseas employment contract, and allowing girls from China and Korea to enter the country as tourists when they will in fact be working as entertainers, all in exchange of money and other favors or consideration, including dating off-load passengers and allowing them to leave the country thereafter, by means of which you cultivated a culture of corruption at the DMIA through your practice called “SOP”, “piso kada ulo”, “piso ulit para sa kahon”, and isang libo ulit para sa supervisor”. You have also willfully, knowingly, and deliberately did not process 2,080 passengers from different airlines at the DMIA within the same period, by not encoding the passengers’ pertinent data in the Bureau of Immigration’s records/database although the said passengers are included in the Airline’s final Passengers Manifest and have actually passed the immigration counter and boarded the aircraft.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[3]
The main bases of the DOJ in charging petitioner and the other employees and officers of BI are the two (2) sworn statements of Racel Ong, also an employee of BI assigned at DMIA, who readily admitted to have also participated in the alleged nefarious scheme. The first sworn statement dated 9 February 2010 mentioned petitioner with the following:
“8. Na ang mga tumatanggap ng pera at kontak din ng mga Illigal na travel agency, para makaalis na walang problema ang isang pasahero, lalo na sa mga pasahero ni Edelsa Romero Quiambao ay sina:
a. Immigration Officers:
1. Romeo Danug
2. Jose Melendres
3. Ramoncito Barro (nakatalaga na sa NAIA)
4. Rey Hernandez
5. Adonis Fontanilla
6. Ramon Lapid
7. Evelyn Marinduquexxxx.”[4] (underscoring supplied)
The second sworn statement dated 17 February 2010, meanwhile cited petitioner in this manner:
“15. Si Evelyn Marinduque ay isang immigration officer na miyembro ng Iglesia ni Kristo na tumatanggap ng S.O.P. sa mga pasahero.”[5] (underscoring supplied)
In her answer before the DOJ Hearing Panel, petitioner denied the allegations against her, arguing that the same are sweeping and presumptive. As affirmative defenses, she argued that: (1) the DOJ had already cleared her of any participation in the alleged human trafficking case; (2) she did not allow any OFW to leave without overseas employment contract; (3) she cannot curtail the right of passengers to travel; and (4) her alleged participation is very minimal, and the allegations against her were very vague, if not totally baseless.[6]
After the presentation of Racel Ong, petitioner and her co-respondents were ordered by the DOJ Hearing Panel to present their evidence-in-chief through position papers together with the affidavits of the witnesses and other documents that they intend to present, including those documents that have been previously marked.[7]
In her position paper, petitioner tried to expose the lack of credibility of Racel Ong. According to petitioner, Racel Ong, in a related case of illegal recruitment, previously executed two (2) affidavits dated 26 March 2009 and 7 April 2009 wherein she vehemently denied knowing Aldesa Romero Quiambao, an alleged illegal recruiter. Meanwhile in Racel Ong’s two (2) affidavits against petitioner dated 9 February 2010 and 17 February 2010, the former contradicted herself by admitting that she assisted the passengers of (Edelsa) Aldesa Quiambao Romero in passing through the Immigration Counters at DMIA. Furthermore, petitioner asserted that the testimony of Racel Ong on 19 November 2010 stating that on 6 June 2008 the latter gave petitioner P2,000 out of P12,000 at the departure area of the immigration is improbable as petitioner was off duty at that time and did not process any passenger.[8]
Nonetheless, in a Resolution dated 13 May 2011, DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima (DOJ Secretary) brushed aside the defenses raised by petitioner. Petitioner and some of her co-defendants were thereafter found guilty of the charges resulting in their immediate dismissal from service.[9]
On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed the above Resolution of the DOJ Secretary in the assailed Decision dated 27 June 2012. The CSC thus decreed:
“WHEREFORE, the consolidated Appeals of Romulo F. Dannug, Immigration Officer I; Jose G. Melendres, Immigration Officer II; Rey Alfred Y. Hernandez, Immigration Officer III; Evelyn O. Marinduque, Immigration Officer II; Gayle B. Sanglay-De Guzman, Stenographer II and Acting Immigration Officer; Robin S. Pinzon, Sheryll P. Manguerra, Clerk I and Acting Immigration Officer; and James G. Guevarra, Clerk I and Acting Collection/Immigration Officer of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), are hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the decision of Secretary Leila De Lima, Department of Justice (DOJ), as embodied in Resolution dated August 5, 2011 denying appellant’s Motion for New Trial and Resolution dated May 13, 2011 finding them guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Gross Neglect of Duty thereby imposing them the penalty of dismissal form the service, are AFFIRMED. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations.
Quezon City.”[10]
Unperturbed, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above Resolution but to no avail as evidenced by the assailed Resolution dated 2 October 2012. The fallo of the said Resolution reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Motions for Reconsideration of Jose G. Melendres, Immigration Officer II, Rey Alfred Y. Hernandez, Immigration Officer III, Ramonsito G. Nuqui, Security Guard and Acting Immigration Officer, Evelyn O. Marinduque, Immigration Officer II, Gayle B. Sanglay-De Guzman, Stenographer II and Acting Immigration Officer all of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, Civil Service Commission (CSC) Decision No. 12-0368 dated June 27, 2012, STANDS.
Quezon City.”[11]
Petitioner now comes to this Court via this instant Petition for Review raising the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE DOJ SECRETARY AS WELL AS THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING MARINDUQUE ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE AND IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE DESPITE THE LACK OF FACTUAL BASES FOR HIS(sic) PARTICIPATION IN THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES;
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICE OF THE DOJ SECRETARY AND THE CSC GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING MARINDUQUE ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE AND IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE DESPITE THE INCONSISTENCIES OF THE DECLARATIONS OF RACEL ONG, AND THE LACK OF SUBSTANCE OF HER ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MARINDUQUE;
In essence, petitioner asserts that there is no substantial evidence to justify her dismissal from service and prays for the immediate dropping of the charges against her.
After sifting through the facts of the case as guided by the applicable laws and jurisprudence, we find the instant petition meritorious.
At the outset, it bears to stress that misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In Grave Misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest.[12]
Meanwhile, Dishonesty is defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud. It implies untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle on the part of the individual who failed to exercise fairness and straightforwardness in his or her dealings.[13]
Conduct Prejudicial To The Best Interest Of Service, on the other hand, pertains to any conduct that is detrimental or derogatory or naturally or probably bringing about a wrong result.[14]
Finally, Gross Neglect of Duty, denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty.[15]
None of the above charges have been proven with the required amount of evidence to strip petitioner of his earned employment.
On this note, it is held that although public office is not property under Section 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, and one cannot acquire a vested right to public office, it is, nevertheless, a protected right.[16] Petitioner cannot thus be deprived of his office without due process of law. Due process requires that the decision must be based on established facts and on a sound legal foundation.[17]
This well-entrenched doctrine finds foundation in the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. CIR,[18] where the Supreme Court held that one of the primary rights that must be respected in an administrative case such as this is that the conclusion or findings of the administrative body must be supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.[19]
In the case at bar, the assailed Decision and Resolutions of the CSC and the DOJ Secretary are apparently anchored on the two (2) affidavits of Racel Ong implicating petitioner as part of a conspiracy of corruption at the DMIA. In addition, there was the oral testimony of Racel Ong during the DOJ hearing that petitioner received P2000 as her share for taking part in an illegal activity on 6 June 2008. Further, the CSC took note of a Comparative Study that shows that several thousands of airline passengers were able to board their planes in DMIA without having been processed by the BI. We will tackle each pieces of evidence separately.
Taking together the two (2) affidavits, it is glaring that Racel Ong only gave general averements that petitioner is on the take for allowing passengers to pass through her station without proper documentations especially the passengers of an alleged illegal recruiter named Edelsa Romero Quiambao. Definitely, such sweeping statements do not amount to substantial evidence considering that the livelihood of a public official is at stake. The questions on the manner, the amount, the identities of the giver, the time, the place were left unanswered. Without such important details, this Court is left wondering as to the veracity of said charges, moreso considering the resources of the DOJ at its disposal to produce footage of the closed circuit television (CCTV) or to subpoena the perceptively thousands of passengers who fell prey to the alleged elaborate contrivance.
It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant.[20] In the instant case, Racel Ong or the DOJ Investigating Panel have not shown, much less submitted, substantial evidence supporting their allegations against petitioner. It is thus unfortunate that petitioner was found guilty by the use of such indiscriminate statements without delving further as to the specific details. Otherwise, any other public servant would stand to lose his job by the mere expediency of including his name in an accusive affidavit.
As to the testimony or Racel Ong that she gave petitioner P2,000 out of P12,000 as the latter’s share,[21] it is important to note that Racel Ong, in her affidavit stated that only those who allowed an otherwise disqualified passenger in boarding a plane are entitled to a share in the loot. The pertinent portions of the Racel Ong’s affidavit dated 17 February 2010 read:
“6. Ititimbre muna kay Ernie Manalo at kapag nag-okay na siya at mag pa-paalam ka at ibibigay ang listahan ng mga pasaherosa(sic) duty supervisor at immigration officer on duty.
xxxx.
31. Ang mga na-offload na mga pasahero ay may kumakausap na security at aalukin kung ba nila makaalis, at sila na ang bahala. Pagkatapos ay pagbabayarin ang mga pasaherong gustong gusto umalis sa halagang P5,000.00, at ito ay ititimbre na sa duty supervisor at immigration officer sa departure counter. Kapag nag-okay si Eranio Manalo at tapos na ang lahat ng usapan, ito ay makaka-alis at kinabukasan. Araw-araw silang nag¬ooffload para araw-araw din may kita.
xxxx.
56. Ang mga janitor, CIOC Operations Customs, Airlines Police ay kasabwat lahat sa mga operasyon ng pamamasahero dahil sa mabilisang kita sa mga ino-offload na pasahero pagkatapos sa immigration kulang ang papel, papaalising nga mga officer at supervisor. Noon naman, sisingit ang mga taga-airport, kaka-usapin at kukumbinsihin o tatakutin ang mga pasahero. Tapos kung may pera o may kakayahang magbayad, makikipag-tawaran sa bayad para makalabas lang sa bansa. Magbabayad sila ng P3,000 – P5,000. Talamak ang ganitong operasyon kaya buong airport, ito ang halos ginagawang sideline. Pagkatapos magkasundo ipakiki-usap na ito ng mga taga-airport sa mga taga-immigration on duty at ito ay ipapa-alam na sa head supervisor at kapag sumignal ng okey si Mr. Heranio B. Manalo ay okay na at doon ibibigay ang pera sa kahon at babayaran ang immigration officer nag-iistamp. Ang sinasabing taas ay ang mga BI Chief ng Immigration at kay Commissioner Libanan.”[22](underscoring and emphasis supplied)
Consequently, petitioner was able to prove through a Schedule of Immigration Officers[23] and a Certification[24] from the BI in Manila that petitioner was not on duty on 6 June 2008 and neither did she process any passenger on said date. Following Racel Ong’s description of the scheme, it is thus obvious that petitioner could not have received anything from Racel Ong at that time as petitioner did nothing to deserve it for she was off-duty. Verily, evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself – tested by human experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years.[25]
Incidentally, the credibility of Racel Ong is also suspect considering that in her two (2) previous sworn affidavits dated 26 March 2009[26] and 7 April 2009[27] in the illegal recruitment case, she vehemently denied knowing Edelsa (Adelsa or Alddesa) Romero Quiambao (Quiambao Romero), now mentioned by Racel Ong in her subsequent two (2) sworn affidavits as their illegal recruiter contact. Such inconsistency and discrepancy are not trivial as they go into the heart of the accusation that petitioner, “xxx facilitated illegal transactions at the DMIA by escorting and assisting passengers of illegal recruiters, xxx.”[28]
Anent the Comparative Study on the Immigration and Airline Manifest Inventory of Passengers[29] that shows that there were 2,080 unaccounted passengers who passed the DMIA immigration counter from May to July 2008, it is worthy to note that there is no evidence directly linking to petitioner as the one or even one of those responsible for the alleged fiasco. It is imperative to point that petitioner is not the only BI officer assigned at the DMIA and the fact that others could have sinned does not automatically mean that each and every BI officials therein are in connivance with each other. Suffice it to state, conspiracy transcends companionship.[30]
What is further alarming about the Comparative Study is that the CSC admitted in its assailed Decision and Resolution that the same was not admitted by the DOJ Panel for want of probative value, as it was not signed by the persons who prepared them.[31] Nonetheless, the CSC in its assailed Decision, still, utilized said Comparative Study to justify petitioner’s dismissal from service.[32]
All told, there is also no clear and substantial evidence that petitioner colluded with the other BI employees and officials in perpetrating such averred unlawful transactions. While it is true that in conspiracy, direct proof is not essential, it must however, be shown that it exists as clearly as the commission of the offense itself. There must at least be adequate proof that the malefactors had come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decided to commit it. [33] Hence, it is a hornbook doctrine that conspiracy must be proved by positive and convincing evidence.[34] In the absence of such evidence, it is right and proper that the charges against petitioner be dropped and that petitioner should be reinstated to her former position with backwages and without loss of seniority rights and benefits from the time of her termination.
Finally, while this Court commends the efforts of the DOJ and the CSC to scrutinize with a fine comb the qualifications of public officers and employees, it cannot countenance unsubstantiated charges against a hapless public official. No matter how noble the intentions of the DOJ and CSC are in pursuing this administrative case against petitioner, it will do them well to remember that good intentions do not win cases; evidence does.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Civil Service Commission dated 27 June 2012 and 2 October 2012 respectively are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Evelyn O. Marinduque is hereby REINSTATED with backwages and without loss of seniority rights and benefits from the time of her dismissal from service.
SO ORDERED.
De Guia-Salvador, R. Chairperson and Cruz, R. JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 21
[2] Now known as Clark International Airport.
[3] Rollo, pp. 143-144.
[4] Anne “J” of Petition, Rollo, p.81.
[5] Annex “K” of Petition, Rollo, p. 84.
[6] Annex “L” of Petition, Rollo, pp. 91-100.
[7] Comment/Opposition to the Petition for Review, Rollo, p. 335.
[8] Annex “Q” of Petition, Rollo, pp. 189-200.
[9] Annex “R” of Petition, Rollo, pp. 206-219.
[10] Rollo, p. 65.
[11] Rollo, p. 49.
[12] Ganzon v. Arlos, G.R. No. 174321, 22 October 2013.
[13] Executive Judge Contreras-Serano v. Clerk III Salamanca, G.R. No. 174321, 22 October 2013.
[14] Id.
[15] Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, G.R. N. 140519, 21 August 2001.
[16] Bince, Jr. v. The Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 106291, 09 February 1993.
[17] Gonzales. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 125735, 26 August 1999.
[18] G.R. No. L-46496, 27 February 1940.
[19] OCA v. Reyes, A.M. No. P-08-2535, 23 June 2010.
[20] Re: Letter Complaint of Atty. Samson, A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J, 11 January 2011.
[21] Petition, Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[22] Annex “K” of Petition, Rollo, pp. 83, 86 and 89.
[23] Rollo, p. 203.
[24] Rollo, p. 204.
[25] People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, 27 July 2011.
[26] Counter-Affidavit, Rollo, p. 285.
[27] Rejoinder, Rollo, p. 289.
[28] Supra, See Note 3.
[29] Comment/Opposition to the Petition for Review, Rollo, pp. 349-350.
[30] Jaculina v. National Police Commission, G.R. No. L-68491, 12 August 1991.
[31] Rollo, pp. 47 and 58.
[32] Rollo, pp. 63-64.
[33] Sargasso Construction v. NLRC, G.R. No. 164118, 09 February 2010.
[34] People v. Patano, G.R. No. 129306, 14 March 2003.