VELASQUEZ v.
HERNANDEZ The two cases although based on the same essential facts and circumstances do not
Question of Fact |August 31 , 2004 | Tinga, J.
Nature of Case: Petition for Review
Digest maker: Pauline
SUMMARY: Complaints by teachers against Helen Hernandez were filed before the CSC
which found Hernandez guilty of the charges and ordered her dismissed from service.
However, in the criminal charges filed against her before the Ombudsman, the Deputy
Ombusdman ordered the dismissal of the case because of insufficiency of evidence (Note
that this came first before the CSC's decision). Hence, Hernandez appealed the CSC's decision
to the CA, claiming denial of due process and the petitioners' violation of the rule against
forum shopping. The CA ruled in her favor, but the SC reversed the CA's decision and held
that Hernandez's dismisssal from service is warranted.
DOCTRINE: : A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as
long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed the acts
stated in the complaint or formal charge.
FACTS:
 The Assistant Schools Division Superintendent of the DECS-Cordillera sent a letter to
Velasquez, informing him of the alleged infractions committed by Hernandez, such
as soliciting, accepting, and receiving sums of money, in exchange for transfer or
promotion of 23 complainant teachers. Velasquez convened a fact-finding committee
to determine the veracity of the charges.
 After investigation, the Committee recommended the filing of administrative and
criminal complaints against Hernandez.
 On 14 March 1997, a formal charge for Grave Misconduct, Conduct Grossly
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Abuse of Authority, and Violation of the
Admin Code Omnibus Rules and other related laws was filed against Hernandez.
 Hernandez contended that the charges are brazen fabrications and falsehoods made
by parties with ulterior motives which are designed to harass her in a systematic
campaign to discredit her and that the preparation and taking of the statements of
the supposed 23 counts of irregularity leveled against her were attended by coercion
and fraud.
 Meanwhile, the Provincial Prosecutor of Abra, due to the sworn complaints filed by
the 23 complaining teachers, indicted Hernandez and a certain Luzviminda de la
Cruz for violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). This resolution
was initially affirmed by the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon but was reconsidered
and set aside. Hence, the latter ordered the withdrawal of Informations for direct
bribery filed against Hernandez and de la Cruz.
 After due proceedings, the CSC found Hernandez guilty and ordered her dismissal
from the service. Hernandez appealed to the CA which reversed the CSC's decision.
The CA ruled that there was violation of the rule against forum shopping considering
that the facts and circumstances for the complaints before the CSC and the
Ombudsman are the same, that there was denial of due process because the fact-
finding committee is not impartial (the chairperson is a relative of one of the
complainants and is the next-in-rank if she is ousted from her position), and that RULING: Petition Granted. CA decision reversed and set aside. Hernandez's dismissal from service is
there was no substantial evidence to support the charges because of the retraction by warranted.
the complainants of their affidavits.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. WON there was forum shopping in this case. – NO
raise identical causes of action and issues. The action filed before the CSC-CAR is
administrative in nature, dealing as it does with the proper administrative liability, if
any, which may have been incurred by respondent for the commission of the acts
complained of. In stark contrast, the case filed before the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon, which incidentally was not initiated by herein petitioners
but by the complainant teachers, deals with the criminal accountability of the
respondent for violation of RA 3019.
2. WON there was denial of administrative due process – NO
In administrative cases, one may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also,
and perhaps even many times more creditably than oral argument, through
pleadings. Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not even strictly applied to
administrative proceedings, and administrative due process cannot be fully equated
to due process in its strict judicial sense. Respondent had been amply accorded the
opportunity to be heard. She was required to answer the formal charge against her
and given the chance to present evidence in her behalf. She actively participated in
the proceedings and even cross-examined the witnesses against her.
3. WON the withdrawal of the criminal complaints against Hernandez bars the filing of
administrative charges against her. – NO
Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial evidence rule." A
finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it
is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed the acts
stated in the complaint or formal charge. Substantial evidence is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This
is different from the quantum of proof required in criminal proceedings which
necessitates a finding of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
Ombudsman, in ordering the withdrawal of the criminal complaints against
respondent was simply saying that there is no evidence sufficient to establish her
guilt beyond reasonable doubt which is a condition sine qua non for conviction. Ergo,
the dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose administrative action against
respondent.
4. WON there is substantial evidence to support the charges against Hernandez. – YES
The sworn complaints of the twenty remaining complainants coupled with their positive
testimonies in the proceedings more than adequately complies with the standard of roof
required in administrative cases. The desistance executed by 3 out of the 23 original
complainants is of no moment since administrative actions cannot be made to depend
upon the will of every complainant who may, for one reason or another, condone a
detestable act.