Mollaneda v.

Umacob
G.R. No. 140128
June 6, 2001
Article 3
FACTS:
Respondent Leonida Umacob filed against petitioner Arnold Mollaneda an affidavitcomplaint for sexual harassment with the CSC. She alleged that when she following up her
request for transfer of assignment, the Admin Officer was not present so it was the petitioner who
is the Division Superintendent, who received her request. After their meeting and when
respondent was about to leave, it was alleged that the petitioner suddenly embraced her, then he
kissed her nose and lip in a torrid manner. Respondent alleges that she tried to resist but
petitioner forcibly held her neck, and then he mashed her left breast afterwhich he warned her
not to tell anyone. The respondent claims that she was shocked, and she only told a fellow DECS
employee, Venus Mariano, about it. Eventually she filed the complaint with DECS in Davao,
which directed the formation of a committee to investigate.
Petitioner denied the allegations in his answer, emphasizing that there are material
contradictions in the narration of respondent. He contradicted the version of the respondent,
claiming that respondent was mad at him for the delay in the transfer of the assignment, and even
murmured before going out that petitioner would regret his act of discrimination. Based on the
witnesses presented by petitioner, there was no act of sexual harassment that occurred.
Eventually a prima facie case was found against the petitioner, and so the records of the case
were elevated to the CSC. The commission designated Atty. Buena to hear and receive the
evidence in the case. Petitioner was then found guilty of grave misconduct and conduct grossly
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and had to suffer dismissal. Forthwith, petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied so he filed with the CA a petition for review,
claiming that he was denied due process and the commission erred in giving weight to hearsay
testimonies. CA though affirmed the resolution, ruling that the matter of assigning values to
testimonies is best performed by trial courts, tribunals or administrative bodies with quasijudicial powers. Through this they can observe the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the
witnesses, that is why their findings are respected. Petitioner did not show anything to prove bias
or to prove that the testimonies were falsified. Petitioner participated in pre-trial, attended the
hearing and cross-examined the witnesses so he cannot invoke violation of his right to due
process.
ISSUE(S):
1. Whether or not the CA erred in relying on the theory that the findings of quasi-judicial
agencies should be given great weight.
2. Whether or not the CA erred in giving credence to the hearsay testimonies of the
respondents witnesses.
3. Whether or not the petitioner can find solace in his acquittal in the criminal case.
HELD:
Prepared by: Jo-Anne Coloquio

1. No.
The court ruled that although CSC assigned Atty. Buena to hear and receive evidence, it does
not render their findings unworthy of credence. The trial court or the administrative body are the
triers of facts, and they are the ones in the best position to assess the demeanor, conduct and
attitude of the witnesses. The appointment of competent officers to hear and receive evidence as
in the case of Atty. Buena is commonly resorted to by administrative bodies, for a more efficient
disposition of cases. In fact the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that the Commission may
deputize any department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct an investigation on
the complaint filed by a private citizen against a government official or employee. The appointed
officer will then investigate and report the facts, on the basis of which the administrative body
can decide. Due process of law does not require that the actual taking of testimony be before the
same officer who will make the decision. As long as the party is not deprived of his right to
present his own case, submit evidence to support his position, and the decision is supported by
the evidence, the right to due process is not violated. One of the requirements of due process is
that the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration
of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate. Therefore the body shall not merely rely on the recommendation but also consider a
personal assessment of the facts. In the case at bar, the Commission itself evaluated the evidence
of both parties as reported by Atty. Buena.
Petitioner also complains that he was not furnished a copy of Atty. Buenas notes and
recommendation. The court rules that in an administrative case the respondent is not entitled to
be informed of the findings and recommendation of any investigating committee. He is only
entitled to the decision based on substantial evidence made of record and a reasonable
opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented against him. Only when the party
adversely affected appeals to the CSC may his counsel be given a copy of the report.
2. No.
A reading of the testimonies of Umacob and Mariano shows that they were not presented to
prove the truth of respondent's accusations against petitioner, but only to establish the fact that
respondent narrated to them what transpired between her and petitioner. It can be hearsay if the
testimony intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted but in the case at bar it is different,
for the making of the statement is the one proved. The petitioner was given the chance to crossexamine the witnesses since he was present during the hearing.
3. No.
The fact that the petitioner was dismissed in the criminal case does not preclude the court from
trying the administrative case. The rule is that the dismissal of a criminal case against an accused
who is a respondent in an administrative case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not
foreclose the administrative proceeding against him, and this only requires substantial evidence.
And the evidence presented was substantial enough to justify his dismissal.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne Coloquio