GR 139794; (February, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139794 ; February 27, 2002
MARTIN S. EMIN, petitioner, vs. CHAIRMAN CORAZON ALMA G. DE LEON, COMMISSIONERS THELMA P. GAMINDE and RAMON P. ERENETA, JR., of the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Martin S. Emin, a Non-Formal Education (NFE) Supervisor of the DECS in Kidapawan, Cotabato, was charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges stemmed from an investigation revealing that several public school teachers had submitted forged Certificates of Eligibility under Republic Act No. 6850 with their appointment papers. The teachers, in their sworn statements, identified petitioner as the person who provided them these fake certificates for a fee. The Civil Service Commission (CSC), after formal charge and hearing, found petitioner guilty and ordered his dismissal.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the CSC’s resolutions. He then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contending that the CSC lacked original jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers, arguing that Republic Act No. 4670 (The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) vests original jurisdiction in a committee composed of the School Superintendent and others. He also claimed he was denied due process.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) Whether the Civil Service Commission has original jurisdiction over the administrative case against petitioner, a Non-Formal Education Supervisor; and (2) Whether petitioner was accorded due process in the proceedings.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC properly exercised jurisdiction. The Court clarified that Republic Act No. 4670 applies specifically to “public school teachers,” which refers to classroom teachers and other teaching personnel engaged in actual classroom instruction in the formal public school system. Petitioner, as an NFE Supervisor under the Bureau of Non-Formal Education, was not engaged in formal classroom teaching. His functions were primarily administrative and supervisory, aimed at coordinating non-formal education programs. Therefore, he was not covered by the special procedure under the Magna Carta. Jurisdiction over his administrative case properly pertained to the CSC under the Administrative Code of 1987, which grants the Commission jurisdiction over all civil service personnel.
On the due process claim, the Court found it devoid of merit. The records showed petitioner was formally charged, given the opportunity to answer, allowed to file a motion to dismiss, and accorded a hearing where he could confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. The fact that he chose not to present evidence did not equate to a denial of due process. The requirements of notice and hearing were substantially complied with. The Court affirmed the findings of the CSC and the Court of Appeals, upholding petitioner’s dismissal for grave misconduct.