G.R. No. 222557 . September 29, 2021
Engr. Juan B. Berces, Petitioner, vs. Civil Service Commission and The Mayor of Tabaco City, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Engr. Juan B. Berces was the City Planning and Development Officer of Tabaco City. On August 5, 2011, he and two other employees were caught by the Chief of Police having a drinking session inside the City Planning and Development Office at around 8:30 p.m. Petitioner apologized to Mayor Cielo Krisel Lagman-Luistro, explaining he was celebrating his 15th anniversary in government service. Nevertheless, the Mayor filed a complaint against him for violating city memorandum orders. Petitioner admitted a lapse of judgment but stressed his long, honest service. After administrative proceedings, Mayor Lagman-Luistro issued an Order dated February 13, 2012, finding petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and dismissing him from service with accessory penalties.
Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). On February 14, 2013, the CSC issued Decision No. 130159, downgrading the offense to Simple Misconduct, finding no direct relation to his duties or corrupt motive, and modifying the penalty to six months suspension. Mayor Lagman-Luistro filed a Motion for Reconsideration seeking reinstatement of the dismissal penalty. Following a change in administration, the new Mayor, Maria Josefa V. Demetriou, informed the CSC of her intent to withdraw the Motion for Reconsideration. However, on July 15, 2013, the CSC granted the Motion for Reconsideration through Resolution No. 1301575, vacated its earlier Decision, and reinstated the penalty of dismissal.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated May 28, 2014, ruling it was the wrong mode of remedy, as a petition for review under Rule 43 was the proper recourse. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 20, 2016.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner was correctly found guilty of grave misconduct and meted the penalty of dismissal from the service along with the accessory penalties appurtenant thereto.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition. On procedural grounds, the Court acknowledged that petitioner erroneously filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari instead of a Rule 43 petition for review to assail the CSC resolution. However, the Court relaxed the procedural rules, noting that a strict application would result in a gross miscarriage of justice, as the substantive issue involved the correctness of the penalty imposed.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that petitioner’s act constituted Simple Misconduct, not Grave Misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of an established rule of action. For misconduct to be grave, it must involve corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a persistent disregard of established rules. The elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest. Petitioner’s act of having a drinking session in the office, while a violation of office rules, was an isolated incident motivated by a personal celebration. There was no evidence of a corrupt motive or a deliberate intent to violate the law. His act did not involve the performance of his official duties and did not cause serious damage or injury to the public. Therefore, the appropriate penalty is suspension for six months and one day to one year for Simple Misconduct. The Court set aside the CSC Resolution and reinstated the CSC’s earlier Decision finding petitioner guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposing a six-month suspension.