GR 146053; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146053 ; April 30, 2008
DIOSCORO F. BACSIN, petitioner, vs. EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Dioscoro F. Bacsin, a public school teacher, was administratively charged with Misconduct. The charge stemmed from an incident on August 16, 1995, where his elementary school student, AAA, alleged that he fondled her breast five times inside his office after asking her to do an errand. A classmate corroborated her account. In his defense, Bacsin claimed the touching was accidental and momentary, occurring as he handed her a lesson book.
The Civil Service Commission (CSC), in its Resolution, found him guilty of the graver offense of “Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual Harassment)” under Republic Act No. 7877 and dismissed him from service. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s ruling. Bacsin now argues before the Supreme Court that he was convicted of an offense—Grave Misconduct—not alleged in the original formal charge, which only specified “Misconduct,” thereby violating his right to due process.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner was denied due process when the CSC found him guilty of Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual Harassment), an offense allegedly different from and graver than the “Misconduct” charged.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that there was no denial of due process and affirmed the petitioner’s dismissal. The Court emphasized that in administrative proceedings, the charge need not be drafted with the technical precision of a criminal information. What is paramount is that the respondent is apprised of the substance of the charge. Here, the formal charge clearly detailed the acts of improper touching against a student. Bacsin was thus sufficiently informed of the factual allegations enabling him to prepare his defense.
The Court further held that the acts as proven—intentionally fondling a student’s breast—constitute sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877 . Sexual harassment does not require an explicit demand for a sexual favor; it can be discerned from the offender’s acts. The act created an intimidating and hostile environment for the student, who testified to feeling fear. These acts properly qualify as Grave Misconduct, a grave offense warranting dismissal under the CSC rules. The designation of the offense in the charge sheet is not controlling; the substance of the allegations is. Therefore, the CSC and the CA correctly found Bacsin guilty of the graver offense based on the facts alleged and proven.