G.R. No. 169931; March 12, 2008
ATTY. EMMANUEL R. SISON, ANTONIO FERNANDO, and DR. ARELLANO T. SO, Petitioners, vs. DR. EVANGELINE P. MALACA, Respondent.

FACTS

Dr. Evangeline Malaca, Assistant Director of Ospital ng Maynila, was designated as a Special Consultant to the Mayor. Believing this was an addition to her duties, she retained her hospital office. Petitioners, however, implemented her relief. Atty. Sison, as Secretary to the Mayor, issued a Special Order designating a new Officer-in-Charge for her office without furnishing her a copy. Subsequently, City Administrator Antonio Fernando issued a Memorandum directing Dr. So to take over Malaca’s office. Dr. So, with the aid of policemen, hired a locksmith to forcibly open the office door. Malaca filed a complaint for grave misconduct, abuse of authority, oppression, and gross discourtesy.
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissed the complaint, finding no prima facie evidence of the charges and upholding the presumption of regularity in the petitioners’ official acts. It noted the office was city property subject to management by the City Administrator. The Court of Appeals modified this ruling, finding petitioners guilty of simple misconduct and discourtesy, citing the irregular implementation of the orders and the drastic act of forcibly opening the office.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioners guilty of simple misconduct and discourtesy, thereby modifying the CSC’s dismissal of the administrative complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the CSC’s resolution dismissing the complaint. The legal logic rests on the principle of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and the burden of proof in administrative cases. Misconduct, whether simple or grave, requires a showing of wrongful intent or a conscious disregard of established rules. The Court found that Malaca failed to present substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity.
Petitioners’ acts were performed pursuant to official functions. Sison’s issuance of the Special Order was within his authority as Secretary to the Mayor, following the Mayor’s prior order relieving Malaca. Fernando’s Memorandum directing the takeover of the office was an exercise of his power under the Local Government Code to manage city property, especially since Malaca, having been relieved, no longer had a right to occupy it. The act of forcibly opening the office, while seemingly harsh, was a consequence of her refusal to vacate after lawful relief. Without proof of malicious intent or a clear violation of law or rule, these acts cannot be classified as misconduct. The Court emphasized that administrative decisions require substantial evidence, which was lacking, and the appellate court improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the CSC, the specialized body tasked with disciplining civil servants.