G.R. No. 137473 ; August 2, 2001
ESTELITO V. REMOLONA, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Estelito V. Remolona was the Postmaster at the Postal Office Service in Infanta, Quezon. His wife, Nery Remolona, was a teacher. The District Supervisor of the Department of Education, Culture & Sports inquired with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) about the status of Mrs. Remolona’s civil service eligibility, based on a Report of Rating showing she passed the teacher’s board examination, and also reported information that she was campaigning for a fee for a passing mark. The CSC verification revealed that Mrs. Remolona’s name was not in the list of examinees for the date in question and that the examination number on her Report of Rating belonged to another person. During a preliminary investigation by the CSC Field Office, only petitioner appeared. He signed a written statement admitting that he procured the fake Report of Rating for his wife from a certain Atty. Hadji Salupadin for a fee of P3,000.00, because he wanted them to be together. He also admitted he later burned the original document. Based on this, a Formal Charge was filed against petitioner, his wife, and Atty. Salupadin. The CSC found the spouses guilty of dishonesty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. Upon motion for reconsideration, the CSC absolved Nery Remolona, finding no evidence she used the fake eligibility, but sustained petitioner’s guilt. The Court of Appeals upheld the CSC’s decision.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether a civil service employee can be dismissed from government service for an offense which is not work-related or not connected with the performance of his official duty. Petitioner also raised the admissibility of his extra-judicial admission due to lack of counsel during the preliminary investigation, the denial of his motion for new trial due to the absence of the transcript of stenographic notes in the Court of Appeals, and the alleged harshness of the penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that a public official or employee may be dismissed for acts committed even outside office hours and unrelated to official duties if the conduct reflects on his fitness for the position. Dishonesty is considered a grave offense warranting dismissal. The Court ruled that the right to counsel under the Constitution applies only to custodial investigations in criminal cases, not to administrative investigations. Therefore, petitioner’s extra-judicial admission during the CSC preliminary investigation was admissible. The denial of the motion for new trial was proper as the absence of the transcript of stenographic notes was not a valid ground. Finally, the penalty of dismissal was appropriate. Dishonesty, especially the falsification of an official document, cannot be countenanced as it violates the high standard of ethics required in public service. The fact that no pecuniary damage was caused to the government, petitioner’s length of service, and that it was his first offense do not mitigate the gravity of the offense.