G.R. No. 165223 January 11, 2016
WINSTON F. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioner, vs. MARIO I. MOLINA, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Winston F. Garcia, as President and General Manager of the GSIS, issued a Memorandum dated September 8, 2003 formally charging respondent Mario I. Molina, an Attorney V in the GSIS Legal Service Group, with grave misconduct and preventively suspending him for 60 days. The charge stemmed from an affidavit by Elino F. Caretero pointing to respondent as the person who handed him a letter entitled “Is It True” on August 26, 2003. The letter contained scurrilous and libelous statements against petitioner, and its supposed author, R. Ibasco, denied authorship. After being required to explain, respondent denied the imputed act. Respondent sought dismissal of the charge and requested a formal investigation. He also filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals challenging the legality of the Memorandum. The CA granted the petition, nullified the Memorandum, and ordered payment of back wages during the preventive suspension period. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in annulling the petitioner’s Memorandum dated September 8, 2003 which formally charged the respondent with grave misconduct and imposed preventive suspension?
RULING
The petition is partly meritorious. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision insofar as it dismissed the formal charge for grave misconduct against respondent, but reversed the CA’s nullification of the preventive suspension and the award of back wages.
The Court held that the petitioner, as GSIS President and General Manager, has the power to discipline erring personnel under Section 45 of Republic Act No. 8291. However, the respondent’s act of handing the letter to Caretero did not constitute grave misconduct. Misconduct must affect the performance of official duties and involve a transgression of an established rule. It becomes grave if it involves additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. The respondent’s act was innocuous, did not breach any office norm, and could not be considered “circulation” of the letter as it was handed to only one individual who asked about it. The act had no direct connection to the performance of his official duties as a litigation lawyer.
Nonetheless, the preventive suspension was valid. Preventive suspension pending investigation is not a penalty but a means to conduct an unhampered investigation. An employee placed under such suspension is not entitled to compensation. The formal charge was for grave misconduct, an offense that justifies preventive suspension under Civil Service rules. The fact that the charge was later found lacking in basis does not automatically render the preventive suspension illegal or entitle the respondent to back wages. The CA erred in awarding back wages.
The Court also addressed the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, noting that the matter brought to the CA involved a purely legal question, thus exempting the respondent from the exhaustion requirement.