UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND AURORA BUIZON, RESPONDENTS.

University of the Philippines versus Civil Service Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by the University of the Philippines against the Civil Service Commission and Aurora Buizon. The University asks the Supreme Court to annul a resolution of the Civil Service Commission which, in an administrative disciplinary action, affirmed the ruling of the Merit Systems Protection Board treating Buizon as resigned from the service while preserving her right to retirement and other benefits. The case matters because it fixes the rule on the consequences of the penalty of dismissal in administrative cases, and it teaches that a penalty which lets a dismissed employee keep her retirement benefits rewards the offense instead of punishing it.

Procedural History

The President of the University of the Philippines charged Buizon in two consolidated administrative cases. The University's Administrative and Investigation Committee found her guilty and recommended suspension for one year. The President of the University concurred in the finding of guilt but imposed the severer penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all retirement and other benefits. Buizon appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which affirmed the finding of guilt but modified the penalty, considering her resigned from the service without prejudice to whatever benefits she may be entitled to under the law. The University moved for reconsideration, and when that was denied, it appealed to the Civil Service Commission. The Commission affirmed the Board and dismissed the appeal. The University then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Facts

On October 27, 1981, the President of the University of the Philippines formally charged Aurora Buizon, then Chief of the Records and Management Section in the Office of the University Registrar, with dishonesty. The charge arose from a report of the Acting University Registrar that four students, all relatives of Buizon, had for several school years been assessed as grantees either under the University's tuition fee discount program or under the Philippine Veterans Administration Scholarship Grants, when in truth they had never been recipients of such grants.

On February 10, 1982, a second charge was filed against her for grave misconduct, acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and dishonesty. In this case, Buizon caused the preparation of a false certified true copy of the grades of a student named Fernando Manicad, also a relative, and on the basis of that falsified certification she made possible his graduation, knowing fully well that he had not satisfied all the requirements for graduation.

The two charges were consolidated and investigated by the University's Administrative and Investigation Committee, which found her guilty and recommended suspension for one year. The President of the University instead dismissed her from office with forfeiture of all retirement and other benefits. The Merit Systems Protection Board and then the Civil Service Commission reduced the penalty to a considered resignation with benefits, prompting this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Civil Service Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board which considered Buizon resigned from the service without forfeiture of her retirement and other benefits.
• Whether or not Buizon's length of service and the fact that this was her first offense may be taken as mitigating circumstances to reduce the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits.

Applicable Provisions

Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Number 30, Series of 1989, which sets the guidelines in the application of penalties in administrative cases, provides:

The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it that of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and the disqualifications for reemployment in the government service.

This is the provision that fixes the accessory consequences of dismissal and defeats any award of retirement benefits to a dismissed employee.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of the University. The Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in holding Buizon resigned but entitled to retirement and other benefits. The Court stressed the nature, number, and gravity of the acts, committed with persistency, determination, and deliberateness sustained for a number of years, and held that to allow her to claim retirement and other benefits would in effect be rewarding rather than punishing the erring employee for her offense. The Court then applied the Memorandum Circular, quoting its rule that dismissal carries forfeiture of retirement benefits.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the Commission's reliance on length of service and first offense. Buizon committed not one act but a series of acts deliberately committed over a number of years while in the service, acts of the gravest character which strike at the very integrity and prestige of the University. Her defense of good faith was found unmeritorious by the President of the University, and she did not appeal that finding to the Board. Her length of service cannot be mitigating, because it was that length of service, among others, that earned her the position and the trust she abused to let her relatives enjoy unmerited privileges and, in the case of Fernando Manicad, an unwarranted diploma. The Court added that her acts constitute gross transgressions of penal laws, and even assuming length of service may be mitigating, the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances far outweigh it.

Doctrine

The penalty of dismissal in an administrative case carries with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from reemployment in the government service. A penalty that allows a dismissed employee to keep her retirement and other benefits rewards rather than punishes the offense, and is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Length of service and first offense do not mitigate where the employee committed a series of deliberate acts over a number of years that strike at the integrity of the institution, especially where that very length of service earned her the position and trust she abused.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the resolution of the Civil Service Commission was reversed and set aside, and the decision of the President of the University dismissing Buizon from office with forfeiture of her retirement and other benefits was reinstated and affirmed, with costs de officio.

Remember This

Memorize the line that dismissal carries forfeiture of retirement benefits, and that letting a dismissed employee keep them rewards the offense. Examiners use this case on the accessory penalties of dismissal and on why length of service and first offense do not mitigate deliberate, repeated misconduct.