CONCHITA G. VILLANOS, petitioner-appellee vs. THE HONORABLE ABELARDO  The administrative charge was first heard before Mr.

ard before Mr. Lucero, District

SUBIDO, Commissioner of Civil Service, respondent-appellant. Supervisor and Investigator, at which hearing Mrs. Sebastian commenced
G.R. No. L-23169 May 31, 197 BARREDO, J. her direct testimony. Second hearing took place before the same
Paguirigan, Tony investigator, wherein Mrs. Sebastian's testimony was concluded.
 Two years thereafter, Villanos wrote a letter to Mr. Lucero asking for a
DOCTRINE: special investigator from either the Bureau of Public Schools or Bureau of
Civil Service law; Denial of due process in administrative proceedings.— Civil Service. However, Villanos request was denied by the Bureau of Public
Where the Civil Service Commissioner ordered the dismissal of a public school Schools "in view of dearth of personnel" in the Office. Continuation of the
teacher before the latter was afforded a full hearing before the proper investigation was directed. Hence, hearing was again scheduled but
administrative authorities, the said conduct of the Commissioner amounts to investigation could not proceed because of another plea for
a denial of due process. postponement by Villanos who claimed that she made a second request
for another investigator from the Civil Service Commission (CSC), who will
Conviction for libel does not automatically justify removal of public officer.— A try jointly the charge against Villano together with another two
condemnatory decision in a criminal case, even if final, by itself alone, cannot administrative charges. For quite sometime, no action was taken on the
serve as basis for a decision in an administrative case involving the same facts, said second request of Villanos.
for the simple reason that matters that are material in the administrative case  March 1962, the investigator made an indorsement forwarding to the
are not necessarily relevant in the criminal case. So, notwithstanding that Division Superintendent of Public Schools the explanation of Villanoson the
findings in criminal cases must be beyond reasonable doubt, they cannot be charges against her and the papers covering the investigation so far
conclusive for administrative purposes. There are defenses, excuses and conducted. The indorsement stated that continuation of the investigation
attenuating circumstances of value in administrative proceedings, which are could not proceed because of the second request of Villanos with the
not admissible in the trial of criminal cases. CSC, which has not been acted upon.
 The Division Superintendent, in turn, indorsed the same papers to the
Exhaustion of administrative remedies.— Where it is found that a public officer Director of Public Schools with a statement to the effect that Villanos
was dismissed without due process, she need not exhaust administrative refused to submit to investigation. He also forwarded to the Director a copy
channels before going to court. of the CA decision which affirmed the libel conviction of Villanos.
 Subsequently, following the indorsement of the Superintendent of Schools,
FACTS: the Assistant Director of Public Schools coursed another indorsement to the
 Petitioner-appellee Villanos is a public school teacher of Vigan Central Secretary of Education wherein he likewise stated that Villanos "refused to
School, in Vigan, Ilocos Sur. She holds the degrees of Elementary Teacher's submit to a formal investigation," and further stated that considering the
Certificate, BS in Elementary Education and BS in Education. She is a civil refusal and her conviction of libel, he recommends that Villanos be
service eligible, having passed the junior and senior teachers' civil service transferred to another station, reprimanded and warned that the
examinations in 1937 and 1956. As of 1963, Villanos had to her credit 38 commission by her of the same or similar offense will be severely dealt with.
years of teaching experience. In Vigan, she was ranked 5th among 138 Then, the Secretary of Education approved this recommendation and
classroom teachers, with 95% efficiency ratings. manifested the same to the Commissioner of Civil Service, respondent-
 April 1957, Villanos wrote a letter jointly addressed to Mrs. Sebastian and appellant herein.
Miss Faypon, her co-teachers in the same school, containing libelous  Disregarding the recommendation of the Department of Education,
remarks against the two. Upon receipt, both instituted a criminal action for Commissioner of Civil Service rendered a decision finding Villanos guilty of
the crime of libel with CFI against Villanos. VIllanos was convicted. On the administrative charge and dismissing her from the service.
appeal to CA, the same was affirmed. Review of the decision was denied  Villanos filed a verified petition for certiorari and/or prohibition, with writ of
for lack of merit by the SC. library preliminary injunction, before the lower court, for the nullification of the
 A few days after the commencement of the criminal action, Mrs. Sebastian decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service.
and Miss Faypon lodged before the Division Superintendent of Schools an  Villanos claimed that she was denied due process of law, that the charge
administrative charge against Villanos for (1) gross discourtesy to them as against her was decided without affording her an opportunity to defend
her co-teachers, and for (2) notoriously disgraceful and/or immoral herself, the decision being merely based on the criminal conviction for libel.
language and/or conduct. They supported their charge with the same She obtained a writ of preliminary injunction from the lower court enjoining
libelous letter, basis of the criminal action. the Commissioner of Civil Service and/or any of his agents or
representatives from enforcing the decision.
  Lower court ruled in favor of Villanos. Miss Faypon for uttering similar words for which Villanos is now being
 Pending resolution of this appeal, the Secretary of Education issued an dismissed. 3rd is the case against Villanos for writing the libelous letter.
indorsement stating that his Office will interpose no objection to the  In view of the close relation between three administrative cases, the best
payment of whatever retirement benefits are due to Villanos, who has procedure would have been to investigate them jointly.
already reached the compulsory age of retirement last Dec. 1968  The investigator must necessarily be not one who occupies the rank of
Commissioner of Civil Service presents three major issues: (1) The lower court District Supervisor because it is lower than the rank of one of the
had no jurisdiction over the case, considering the fact that Villanos failed to respondents. He should also not be under the office of the Division
appeal the decision of Commissioner of Civil Service to the Civil Service Board Superintendent of Ilocos Sur, in order to avoid any suspicion of partiality.
of Appeals; (2) Villanos was not given due process in the administrative case  In asking for an investigator from the Bureau of Public Schools or from the
before it was decided; and (3) Commissioner of Civil Service did not commit Office of the Commissioner of Civil Service, Villanos cannot be charged
grave abuse of discretion in rendering the decision imposing upon Villanos the with deliberately delaying the proceedings. What was proven in the
penalty of dismissal with the further injunction that the decision be immediately present case is that both Commissioner of Civil Service and the Director of
executed. Public Schools were misled by the erroneous conclusions of the
ISSUE: Superintendent of Schools to the effect that Villanos refused to submit to
W/N the lower court has no jurisdiction over the case, considering the fact that investigation.
Villanos failed to appeal the decision of Commissioner of Civil Service to  Such a conclusion is unwarranted for as shown by the evidence, the
the Civil Service Board of Appeals –NO investigation was delayed first because the investigator was out for over
W/N Villanos was not given due process in the administrative case before it two years and later because the Commissioner of Civil Service did not act
was decided –YES on Villano’s request for an investigator coming from the Civil Service
W/N the Commissioner of Civil Service did not commit grave abuse of Commission and the old investigator, instead of proceeding with the
discretion in rendering the decision imposing upon Villanos the penalty of investigation, merely submitted the records to the Director of Public Schools
dismissal with the further injunction that the decision be immediately through the Superintendent of Schools, who as stated above
executed –YES misunderstood the indorsement of the investigator.
 This misunderstanding of the attitude taken by Villanos is very important not
HELD: only in the action taken by the Director of Public Schools who submitted
I. Villanos has not been given a full hearing. The investigation was not even the case to Commissioner of Civil Service thru the Secretary of Education
half-through when the Superintendent of Schools made his indorsement which for decision but also in finding Villanos guilty and recommending that she
culminated in the challenged decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service. be transferred to another station, reprimanded and warned that the
The contention of the Commissioner of Civil Service that Villanos was unduly commission by her of the same or similar offense will be severely dealt with.
delaying the proceedings and that she refused to submit to investigation has  Indeed, it may be noted that what occurred was precisely what petitioner
no basis in fact and in law. feared would happen if the investigation were to be conducted by
 Villanos did not have the opportunity to defend herself during the someone from the Office of the Superintendent, considering that she had
administrative investigation cannot be seriously questioned. As a matter of charged the former Superintendent with bribery or corruption in office. As
fact, only one witness was able to testify and her cross examination has not can be seen, it was the Superintendent who made the initial erroneous
yet been concluded when the hearing was postponed. indorsement that Villanos "refused to submit to an investigation" and even
 Even the Solicitor General apparently agrees to this finding when he argues attached to the records a certified copy of CA decision convicting her,
in his memorandum that 'when disciplinary action is based upon conviction thus providing the Commissioner of Civil Service with what he considered a
of a criminal offense, the formal administrative hearing may be dispensed sufficient legal basis for her dismissal. These circumstances give added
with.' weight to the charge of Villanos that the action of Commissioner of Civil
 However, the argument of the SolGen is too broad and cannot be true in Service is short of being fair and legal.
all cases. In this particular case, three separate administrative charges are  Undoubtedly, Villanos had a right to request for a different investigator and
inter-linked with each other. 1st administrative charge was against the to await the outcome of such request. Hence, the SC hold that the action
former Superintendent of Schools of Ilocos Sur and his Chief Clerk for of the education authorities and the Commissioner of Civil Service of
alleged bribe or at least corruption in office. From the evidence in the considering the case submitted for decision is unwarranted. It is obvious
records, it was insinuated that the Chief Clerk received material favors from that said action constitutes denial to Villanos of her right to due process,
the father of Mrs. Sebastian resulting in salary promotions in her favor. 2nd hence, Commissioner of Civil Service decision is null and void.
administrative case is that one filed by Villanos against Mrs. Sebastian and
II. The plea that the CA decision, which found Villanos guilty of libel is enough IV. Records show that last December 1968, Villanos reached the compulsory
basis for Commissioner of Civil Service's decision is equally without merit. To retirement age of 65. Devoid of any means of livelihood, she is now requesting
begin with, the CA decision was never presented as evidence during the for whatever retirement benefits she is entitled to after long years of service in
investigation. It was just attached to the records by the Superintendent when the government.
he indorsed them to the Bureau of Public Schools without even advising  It may be mentioned in this connection that in a 1st Indorsement that the
Villanos about it. Thus, Villanos had no chance to present evidence which Office ruled that the compulsory retirement of one who has reached the
could have blunted the effects of said decision. And she had a right to present age of 65 terminates the administrative proceedings against him. However,
such evidence. A condemnatory decision in a criminal case, even if final, by the Secretary of Justice, in Opinion No. 5, stated the the "retirement of an
itself alone, cannot serve as basis for a decision in an administrative case officer or employee does not, ... nullify or render moot the investigation of
involving the same facts, for the simple reason that matters that are material in the administrative charges filed against him for delinquency or misconduct
the administrative case are not necessarily relevant in the criminal case. So, in Office, although it may render academic the imposition of certain
notwithstanding that findings in criminal cases must be beyond reasonable penalties like removal, demotion or reduction in rank. The consequential
doubt, they cannot be conclusive for administrative purposes. There are penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits and leave privileges incidental
defenses, excuses and circumstances of value in administrative proceedings to dismissal from the service for cause may still be given effect."
which are not admissible in the trial of the criminal cases. At any rate, it is  However, the Commissioner of Civil Service rendered an opinion that "only
settled in this jurisdiction that even where criminal conviction is specified by law in case of investigation or prosecution of those offenses, defined and
as a ground for suspension or removal of an official or employee, such penalized under RA 3019 or Anti-Graft Law and those in RPC on Bribery,
conviction does not ex proprio vigore justify automatic suspension without may a public officer be prohibited from resigning or retiring.
investigation and hearing as to such conviction.  In view thereof, the request of Villanos is being transmitted to that Office for
 Not even final conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, as whatever action that Office deems proper to take on the matter. Further,
distinguished from conviction pending appeal, dispenses with the requisite information is being requested as to what Office "will give effect" to the
notice and hearing. Final conviction is mentioned in Section 2188 of the forfeiture of retirement benefits incidental to dismissal from the service.c
Revised Administrative Code as ground for proceeding administratively  It may be mentioned in this connection that considering the 43 years of
against the convicted officer but does not operate as automatic removal service of Villanos in the government, that the construction of rules relating
doing away with the formalities of an administrative hearing. to administrative disciplinary action must be strictly construed against the
government and liberally in favor of respondent employee, this Office will
III. The SC do not also agree with Commissioner of Civil Service’s posture that interpose no objection to the payment of whatever retirement benefits are
Villanos has not exhausted administrative remedies. SC found that Villanos was due to Villanos.
denied due process. Such being the case, the rule of exhaustion invoked is not  We required further information from the parties as to whether or not
applicable here. appellee's purported retirement has actually materialized. In a
 It has been repeatedly held that the principle requiring the previous manifestation, all that Villanos counsel could say was that he transmitted
exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable where the question copy of the resolution to Villanos by registered mail but he had not
in dispute is purely a legal one; where the controverted act is patently received any reply. Under the circumstances, the SC has deemed it best
illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; to render this judgment, but this decision is not to be understood as
where the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter upholding any of the views expressed by the different officials referred to in
ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter; or the above-quoted indorsement regarding the question of whether or not
where there are circumtances indicating the urgency of judicial an official or employee in the civil service may be allowed to resign before
intervention. the termination of an administrative investigation being conducted against
 Similarly, as this case, in terminating the services of Vilannos, the him, which question, the SC do not have to decide for the purposes this
Commissioner of Civil Service acted summarily without any semblance of case.
compliance, or even an attempt to comply with the elementary rules of
due process, when the order is immediately executed and Villanos was WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is affirmed. No costs.
immediately removed from office, then appeal was not a plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in ordinary course of law, and the employee
adversely affected may forthwith seek the protection of the courts.