GERMAN P. ZAGADA, PETITIONER, VS. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND MELDA BERNALDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

This petition for certiorari seeks the review and reversal
of Resolution No. 91-1040 dated August 29, 1991 of the respondent Civil Service
Commission, ordering the dismissal of the petitioner from his position as Dis­trict
Supervisor of Bato District, Camarines Sur on account of dishonesty, grave
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service.

On November 29, 1983, Melba A. Bernaldez, a duly-qualified civil
service eligible and teacher-applicant in the public school at Bato District,
Bato, Camarines Sur, filed a complaint in the Office of the Regional Director,
Civil Service Commission, Region V, at Legaspi City, against the petitioner for
anomalies in the performance of his official duties in violation of Civil
Service Rules and Regulations, and for partiality and favoritism.

The charges, in a nutshell, were:

1. Employment of
complainant as substitute teacher in considera­tion of P500.00;

2. Giving preference to
non-eligibles over eligibles in matters of employment; and

3. Other irregularities
such as reserving vacancies for favorites and allowing substitute teachers to
serve later than the effectivity date of their appointments yet allowing them
to collect their salaries for services not actually rendered, partiality and
absenteeism.

Bernaldez alleged that in the beginning of school year 1983-1984,
she reported for screening and interview by a committee created to draw up a
District Ranking List, which was to serve as basis for future teaching
appointments. She emerged tenth in the
ranking list, but despite repeated follow-ups of her teaching application with
the petitioner’s office, she merely received empty promises; while non-eligible
applicants belonging to the “non-priority list” like Lilibeth
Bergado, Alona Tuyay and Remedios Relos, were appointed instead of her. Only after her husband gave “PR”
money in the amount of P500.00 to the respondent was she granted an appointment
as a substitute elementary school teacher for only one month, because Mrs.
Leticia Intia, whom she substituted, reported back to work earlier than
expected. In Novem­ber, 1983, she was
offered a one-month substitute ap­pointment in the same school, but she lost
interest in it because she felt discriminated against not being able to receive
a regular teaching appointment despite her qualifications. She sought the intervention of the Division
Superintendent and later a lawyer-friend, who advised her to file a complaint.

In his letter-answer to the complaint, petitioner alleged that it
was his policy to give long-term substitute vacancies to non-civil service
eligibles while “natural” vacancies occurring by reason of the
retirement, transfer or death of the incumbents were to be given to civil
service eligible applicants; he admitted that he allowed anyone to see him in
his house during Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; but he denied that he
accepted gifts and grease money from the applicants for teaching appointments.

The Civil Service Commission Regional Director Elium C. Banda, in
Legaspi City, heard the charges.

The complainant adduced evidence showing that at least thirteen
(13) substitute teachers gave money to the petitioner to ensure their receiving
teaching ap­pointments; that the alleged division policy adverted to in
Zagada’s answer did not exist; and that he succeeded in defrauding the government by allowing substi­tute
teachers (namely, Mrs. Villoso, Rosa Talagtag, Marilyn Pureza, Evangeline Pili
and Rosalia Boac) to serve much later than the effectivity date of their
appointments thus, enabling them to collect salaries for services not actually
rendered.

On June 25, 1990, Director Banda issued a 1st indorsement finding
Zagada guilty of dishonesty and of
acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service and recommending his
dismissal from the service.

Zagada appealed to the CSC’s Merit System Protec­tion Board (MSPB). The appeal was referred to CSC’s Office for
Legal Affairs.

On August 29, 1991, the Civil Service Commission issued
Resolution No. 91-1040 finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty, grave
misconduct, and conduct prejudi­cial to the interest of the service, and
imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from the service. (p. 38, Rollo).

Upon the denial of his motion for reconsidera­tion, Zagada filed
this petition for review on certio­rari.

After deliberating on Zagada’s petition and the comments thereon of
the public and private respondents, the Court resolved to dismiss the petition.

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the charges against
him is a factual issue which this Court, not being a trier of facts, will not
pass upon. As a general rule and practice, the Court will not examine and
evaluate the evidence presented before the administrative authorities. Their factual findings are ac­corded not
only respect but finality, if supported by substantial evidence; because of the
special knowledge and expertise gained by these quasi-judicial tribunals from
handling specific matters falling under their jurisdiction (Villañueva vs.
Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 537; Santos vs. Executive Secretary, 208 SCRA 74).

The petitioner was accorded ample opportunity through counsel to
confront the witnesses against him and to adduce evidence in his defense. He filed an answer to the complaint as well as a supplementary answer. He also filed motions for reconsideration
and oppositions to private respondent’s comments. Therefore, his
plea of denial of procedural due process is not credible. What the law prohibits is not the absence of
previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard (KBMBPM vs. Hon. Dominguez,
205 SCRA 92).

The credibility of witnesses is for the adminis­trative bodies to
determine. Their findings may not be
set aside without any showing of capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment
or an exercise of unconstitutional powers amounting to a grave abuse of
discretion, or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Civil Service
Commission. None of these tainted the
proceedings against the petitioner in this case.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DIS­MISSED
for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.