GR 172776; (December, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172776 , December 17, 2008
COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, petitioner, vs. ATTY. FELINA S. DASIG, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Felina S. Dasig was the Chief Education Program Specialist and former officer-in-charge of the Legal Affairs Service (LAS) of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). In a 1998 Memorandum, the LAS Director brought to CHED’s attention complaints against Dasig, supported by sworn affidavits from three students (Rosalie Dela Torre, Rocella Eje, and Jacqueline Ng) who alleged Dasig tried to exact money from them under the pretense of attorney’s fees for requests to correct their names in academic records. CHED LAS staff members corroborated the students’ allegations and further claimed Dasig attempted to persuade them to participate in anomalous activities, including accepting money for office equipment. Dasig denied the charges, claiming she advised the students to file petitions in court and provided alibis for her whereabouts during the alleged incidents. A CHED hearing committee investigated and found substantial evidence to hold Dasig liable for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, recommending her dismissal. CHED and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) upheld this decision. Dasig appealed to the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in a separate disbarment proceeding, found Dasig liable for gross misconduct for extorting money from the same students and ordered her disbarment. The Court of Appeals, however, found Dasig liable only for simple misconduct, characterizing her acts as “moonlighting” or private legal practice while employed at CHED.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding respondent Atty. Felina S. Dasig liable only for simple misconduct instead of grave misconduct warranting dismissal from service.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that Dasig’s actions constituted grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting dismissal from the service. The Court found that Dasig, a lawyer and public official, exploited her position by soliciting money from students seeking CHED assistance, under the guise of attorney’s fees for a legal service (correction of name) that was not within CHED’s power to grant. This was not mere “moonlighting” but a clear misuse of office for personal gain, violating the trust of her position. The Court emphasized that its factual findings in the disbarment case against Dasig, which established her attempt to extort money, were binding and conclusive. The penalty of dismissal is appropriate, carrying with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from government service.