G.R. No. 143474 ; August 6, 2002
PACIFICO FAELDONEA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and MERCED FAELDONEA, respondents.

FACTS

In April 1994, petitioner Pacifico Faeldonea, as Postmaster of the Dumalag, Capiz Post Office, assigned Efren Faeldonea as Acting Postmaster while petitioner attended a seminar. During this period, Efren incurred accountabilities amounting to P98,347.90. Efren died on February 21, 1996, before settling this obligation and other debts, including those to petitioner. Upon the request of Efren’s widow, respondent Merced Faeldonea, petitioner agreed to assume Efren’s financial obligations while Merced awaited her husband’s death benefits, promising to pay petitioner upon receipt. Petitioner also filed a petition for appointment as administrator of Efren’s estate in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). In late 1996, petitioner obtained an envelope addressed to Merced containing the check for Efren’s death benefits. He opened the envelope and took the check to pay Efren’s obligation to the Philippine Postal Corporation. On November 27, 1997, petitioner filed a motion in the MCTC to allow him to deposit the check with the court. When the motion was denied, he deposited the check with the Philippine Postal Corporation’s account in the Land Bank of the Philippines. Upon learning of this, Merced filed a verified complaint with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against petitioner for dishonesty, frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On April 7, 1997, petitioner was formally charged with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for opening the mail envelope without the addressee’s consent. The CSC found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s resolution.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Pacifico Faeldonea is guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty warranting dismissal from the service.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that petitioner is not guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty but is liable for simple misconduct. The Court found that petitioner’s conduct, while improper, was not flagrant or shamefully wrong so as to constitute grave misconduct. Petitioner acted in good faith, motivated by the intention to settle Efren’s obligations to the Philippine Postal Corporation and clear the deceased’s name, without any ill or selfish motives. The absence of wrongful intent negates grave misconduct. Similarly, dishonesty, which implies concealment of truth, was not proven, as petitioner notified Merced of his actions. However, as Postmaster, petitioner failed in his duty to preserve the privacy of communication and the integrity of the postal system by taking matters into his own hands instead of delivering the check to the addressee. Thus, petitioner is liable for simple misconduct. The penalty imposed is suspension for six (6) months.