GR 104304 05; (June, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104304 -05 June 22, 1993
Luningning Landrito, petitioner, vs. Civil Service Commission, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Luningning Landrito, a public school teacher at J. Rizal Elementary School, was charged with Grave Misconduct. The charge stemmed from a published letter by Antonia N. Mirabona, an examinee, complaining of cheating during the August 5, 1990 Career Service Examination at the school. The letter identified a woman in a black-striped dress who entered Room 17, got a questionnaire, and dictated answers, with the proctor telling examinees to keep it a secret. A fact-finding investigation by the Civil Service Commission National Capital Region (CSC-NCR) identified petitioner as the woman. The CSC-NCR, after a hearing, found her guilty of Simple Misconduct and recommended a suspension of one month and one day to six months. However, the Civil Service Commission, in Resolution No. 91-1091, found her guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal. Resolution No. 92-202 denied her motion for reconsideration. Petitioner denied dictating answers, claiming she only explained the procedure for changing answers to all examinees in Room 17 after one examinee asked how to correct an answer. She also admitted to the school principal that she was the person referred to in the letter.
ISSUE
Whether the acts committed by petitioner constitute Grave Misconduct warranting dismissal, or only Simple Misconduct warranting a lesser penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission. It found petitioner guilty only of Simple Misconduct, not Grave Misconduct. The Court noted the lack of clear evidence that she dictated specific answers, as the proctor witness could not confirm if what was dictated were answers to exam questions. The Court found petitioner’s explanationthat she merely demonstrated the answer-changing procedure using an examplemore credible. It emphasized that for Grave Misconduct, elements like corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of rules must be manifest, which were absent. The Court observed she did not coach a particular examinee privately, did not profit from the act, and her actions did not seriously compromise the exam’s integrity, only causing a disturbance. It also considered her 24 years of unblemished service. Accordingly, the penalty was reduced to a suspension of one month and one day.