MELENCIO E. CORPUZ, PETITIONER, VS. RADAMALYN F. CARDOZA, JONATHAN D. DELA CRUZ, EDENA PALOMO VDA. DE SOLANO, JERRY B. CANAVERAL, JERRY R. GREGORIO, RESPONDENTS.

Corpuz versus Cardoza

The Case

This is an administrative case that began as a complaint against a public school principal and ended as a lesson on the dividing line between simple and grave misconduct. Melencio Corpuz, then principal of two elementary schools in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, was accused by Radamalyn Cardoza, Jonathan Dela Cruz, Edena Palomo Vda. de Solano, Jerry Canaveral, and Jerry Gregorio of cutting trees and demolishing a school building without authority, and of taking the proceeds and materials for himself. The case matters because it shows exactly what substantial evidence must prove before a transgression of the rules can be elevated to grave misconduct, and what penalty follows when the qualifying elements are missing.

Procedural History

The respondents filed a complaint affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman. In a decision dated June 15, 2016, the Ombudsman found Corpuz guilty of grave misconduct, simple neglect of duty, and simple misconduct, and dismissed him from service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government. Corpuz moved for reconsideration, which the Ombudsman denied in an order dated August 23, 2016.

Corpuz then filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated April 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals upheld the finding of grave misconduct. Corpuz moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in a resolution dated June 17, 2020. Corpuz then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

Sometime in 2008, while principal of Bagong Sikat Elementary School, Corpuz ordered the cutting of a mahogany tree inside the school compound and the demolition of a five-classroom building. The respondents alleged that the lumber was used in his house, that materials from the demolished building, including iron grills, were brought home, and that an iron pipe from the school artesian well became a post in his veranda. Corpuz answered that he secured the necessary permits from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Municipal Engineer, and that the building was already damaged by the elements and termites and needed immediate demolition.

In December 2014, Corpuz ordered the cutting of twelve trees of various kinds inside the compound of San Jose Pilot Elementary School without a permit from the Director of Parks and Wildlife. The respondents claimed that some wood went to teachers' cabinets, some was sold with the proceeds pocketed, some was sold to Lopez Bakery as firewood, and some was taken home and converted into charcoal. Corpuz maintained that the wood produced fifty armchairs and other school furniture and paid the chainsaw operator.

The Ombudsman found substantial evidence only as to the trees at San Jose Pilot Elementary School. The records showed that on several occasions Corpuz sold wood to Lopez Bakery for a total of 2,800 pesos, and that he failed to show the proceeds were remitted to the school. The Ombudsman found no basis to hold him liable for the mahogany lumber and the salvaged materials, since no inventory was prepared and a demolition permit had in fact been issued.

Issues

• Whether or not Corpuz is administratively liable for grave misconduct in relation to the cutting and sale of trees at San Jose Pilot Elementary School.
• Whether or not Corpuz is administratively liable for simple neglect of duty for failing to account for the materials salvaged from the demolished five-classroom building.
• Whether or not Corpuz is administratively liable for simple misconduct for cutting one acacia tree and one mahogany tree without the required permits.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal from service was proper.

Applicable Provisions

Section 50 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

If the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.

This governs the penalty because Corpuz was found liable on more than one count.

Section 46(D) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Less grave offenses are punishable by suspension ranging from one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense.

Both simple misconduct and simple neglect of duty fall under this classification, which fixes the range of the imposable penalty.

Section 48(1) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

The following are mitigating circumstances: first offense.

Corpuz is a first-time offender, which weighs in his favor.

Section 49(d) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

The maximum of the penalty shall be imposed where only aggravating circumstances are present.

Since the additional counts operate as aggravating circumstances, this provision sets the penalty at the maximum.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the finding of grave misconduct is not supported by substantial evidence. Misconduct becomes grave only when corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule is manifest. The only evidence was the sworn statement of Lopez, owner of Lopez Bakery, stating that the bakery bought cut trees from the school on three occasions for a total of 2,800 pesos. That statement proves a sale, but it is silent on what happened to the proceeds. It does not show whether they were turned over to the school treasurer, deposited in school funds, or retained by Corpuz. Without receipts, audit reports, or testimony from the school treasurer confirming non-remittance, the conclusion that Corpuz profited is speculative, and a presumption or conjecture is not substantial evidence. Corpuz also explained that the proceeds paid the laborers, the chainsaw operator, and the chainsaw rental, and he presented the sworn statement of the teacher Joel Rivera and certifications from several teachers. The Court stressed that grave misconduct is not mere failure to comply with the law; the failure must be deliberate and done to secure a benefit. There must be evidence independent of the transgression itself showing personal gain. Here, there was none. The infraction is therefore simple misconduct.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that Corpuz is liable for simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference. He failed to account for the salvaged materials and did not maintain a record of the demolished school properties as required.

On the third issue, the Court likewise found simple misconduct for cutting one acacia tree and one mahogany tree without permits. Simple misconduct exists when the act does not involve corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. Those elements were absent, as shown by his compliance in obtaining permits for the other trees. His omission reflected a lack of prudence, not intentional defiance.

On the penalty, the Court applied Section 50 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Both simple misconduct and simple neglect of duty are less grave offenses. The additional counts were treated as aggravating circumstances, and the mitigating circumstance of first offense was considered. Since more aggravating circumstances were present, the maximum penalty was imposed.

Doctrine

Misconduct is a transgression of an established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. It is classified as simple or grave. In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest. Corruption consists in the act of an official who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station to procure some benefit for himself or another, contrary to duty and the rights of others. Clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule presupposes an order or regulation defied by the public official. Without any of these elements, the transgression is properly characterized as simple misconduct only. Grave misconduct is not mere failure to comply with the law; the failure must be deliberate and done to secure a benefit for the offender or another, and there must be evidence independent of the failure to comply. A presumption or conjecture does not constitute substantial evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of administrative liability. When two or more charges are proven, the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious charge, and the rest are aggravating circumstances.

Disposition

The petition was partially granted. Corpuz was found guilty of two counts of simple misconduct and one count of simple neglect of duty, and was ordered suspended from office for six months, convertible into a fine equivalent to his salary for six months should the suspension no longer be enforceable due to supervening separation from service.

Remember This

Memorize this line: grave misconduct requires corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule, and none of these may be presumed from the mere transgression of a rule. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between simple and grave misconduct, the substantial evidence standard in administrative cases, and the penalty rule for multiple offenses under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.