GR 223429; (January, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 223429 . January 29, 2020.
DELILAH L. SOLIVA, PETITIONER, V. DR. SUKARNO D. TANGGOL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHANCELLOR OF MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY – ILIGAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MSU-IIT), RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Delilah L. Soliva, a faculty member of MSU-IIT, was a member of the Board of Canvassers (BOC) for a straw poll for Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs on October 6, 2010. She was tasked to read the ballots. During canvassing, petitioner instructed two watchers to bundle and staple counted ballots and directed another to check food, leaving her as the sole reader of the remaining ballots. Witnesses testified that petitioner then read ballots unusually quickly, repeatedly calling out the name “Orejudos.” The initial canvass results showed Dr. Jerson Orejudos receiving 242 votes. A recount on October 13, 2010, conducted without petitioner who was on leave, yielded substantially different results, crediting Dr. Orejudos with only 127 votes. The Institute Formal Investigation Committee found petitioner guilty of Gross Dishonesty. The MSU Board of Regents initially exonerated her. However, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), on appeal by Chancellor Tanggol, reversed the Board and found petitioner guilty of Serious Dishonesty, imposing dismissal with accessory penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the CSC’s finding that petitioner is guilty of Serious Dishonesty warranting the penalty of dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition. It found petitioner administratively liable, but modified the offense and penalty. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence sufficiently established petitioner’s culpability for dishonesty. The evidence showed she manipulated the canvassing by distracting the watchers and misreading ballots, causing a significant discrepancy in vote counts. However, the Court ruled that her actions constituted Simple Dishonesty, not Serious Dishonesty. The dishonest act did not cause damage or prejudice to the government, nor did it result in personal gain or benefit to petitioner. Considering her over 40 years of service and that this was her first offense, the Court meted the penalty of suspension for six months.