Remolona v. CSC

2/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 362
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remolona vs. Civil Service Commission
*
G.R. No. 137473. August 2, 2001.
ESTELITO V. REMOLONA, petitioner, vs. CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
Administrative Law; Public Officers; Right to Counsel; The

right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to
protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial investigation
—the exclusionary rule under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill
of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal
investigation but not to those made in an administrative
investigation.—The submission of Remolona that his alleged
extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because he was not
assisted by counsel during the investigation as required under
Section 12 paragraphs 1 and 3, Article III of the 1987
Constitution deserves scant consideration. The right to counsel
under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect
in a criminal case under custodial investigation. Custodial
investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no
longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to
focus on a particular suspect who had been taken into custody by
the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself
to elicit incriminating statements. It is when questions are
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action
in any significant way. The right to counsel attaches only upon
the start of such investigation. Therefore, the exclusionary rule
under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only
to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those
made in an administrative investigation.
Same; Same; Same; While investigations conducted by an
administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal
proceeding, the fact remains that under existing laws, a party in
an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel,
irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent’s
capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on such body to
furnish the person being investigated with counsel; The right to
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170893a8c335800c181003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
counsel is not always imperative in administrative investigations

because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether
there are facts that merit disciplinary measure against erring
public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the
dignity of government service.—While investigations conducted by
an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal
proceeding, the fact remains that under exist-
_______________
* EN BANC.
305
VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 305
ing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be

assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and
of the respondent’s capacity to represent himself, and no duty
rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with
counsel. In an administrative proceeding, a respondent has the
option of engaging the services of counsel or not. This is clear from
the provisions of Section 32, Article VII of Republic Act No. 2260
(otherwise known as the Civil Service Act) and Section 39,
paragraph 2, Rule XIV (on discipline) of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise
known as the Administrative Code of 1987). Thus, the right to
counsel is not always imperative in administrative investigations
because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine
whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measure against
erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of
maintaining the dignity of government service. As such, the
hearing conducted by the investigating authority is not part of a
criminal prosecution.
Same; Same; Same; Admissions made by a respondent during
an administrative investigation may be used as evidence to justify
his dismissal.—In the case at bar, Remolona was not accused of
any crime in the investigation conducted by the CSC field office.
The investigation was conducted for the purpose of ascertaining
the facts and whether there is a prima facie evidence sufficient to
form a belief that an offense cognizable by the CSC has been
committed and that Remolona is probably guilty thereof and
should be administratively charged. Perforce, the admissions
made by Remolona during such investigation may be used as

evidence to justify his dismissal.
Same; Same; Dishonesty; The rule is that dishonesty, in order
to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the
performance of duty by the person charged—if a government officer
or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave
misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with
his office, they affect his right to continue in office; The principle is
that when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is
not the punishment of such officer or employee but the
improvement of the public service and the preservation of the
public’s faith and confidence in the government.—It cannot be
denied that dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable
by dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the
Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. And the
rule is that dishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal, need not be
committed in the course of the performance of duty by the person
charged. The rationale for the rule is that if a government officer
or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave
miscon-
306
duct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his
office, they affect his right to continue in office. The Government
cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he
performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his
government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to
commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against
offices and entities of the government other than the office where
he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and
possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims
of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed
and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and
actuations. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated
from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of
the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and
morale of the service. The principle is that when an officer or
employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of
such officer, or employee but the improvement of the public
service and the preservation of the public’s faith and confidence in
the government.
Same; Judicial Review; The rule is that courts of justice will

not generally interfere with purely administrative matters which
are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies
unless there is a clear showing that the latter acted arbitrarily or
with grave abuse of discretion or when they have acted in a
capricious and whimsical manner such that their action may
amount to an excess of jurisdiction.—The general rule is that
where the findings of the administrative body are amply
supported by substantial evidence, such findings are accorded not
only respect but also finality, and are binding on this Court. It is
not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence,
determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its
own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the
sufficiency of evidence. Thus, when confronted with conflicting
versions of factual matters, it is for the administrative agency
concerned in the exercise of discretion to determine which party
deserves credence on the basis of the evidence received. The rule,
therefore, is that courts of justice will not generally interfere with
purely administrative matters which are addressed to the sound
discretion of government agencies unless there is a clear showing
that the latter acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion
or when they have acted in a capricious and whimsical manner
such that their action may amount to an excess of jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 of the
Supreme Court clearly states that in resolving appeals from quasi-
judicial agencies, it is within the discretion of the Court of Appeals
to have the original records of the proceedings under review
transmitted to it.—The
307
VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 307
transmittal of the transcript of stenographic notes taken during

the formal hearing before the CSC is entirely a matter of
discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. Revised
Administrative Circular No. 1-95 of this Court clearly states that
in resolving appeals from quasi-judicial agencies, it is within the
discretion of the Court of Appeals to have the original records of
the proceedings under review transmitted to it. Verily, the Court
of Appeals decided the merits of the case on the bases of the
uncontroverted facts and admissions contained in the pleadings
filed by the parties.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Del Prado, Diaz & Associates for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
PUNO, J.:
The present petition seeks to review and set aside the

Decision
1
rendered by the Court of Appeals dated July 31,
1998 upholding the decision of the Civil Service
Commission which ordered the dismissal of petitioner
Estelito V. Remolona (Remolona) from the government
service 2for dishonesty, and the Resolution dated February
5, 1999 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Records show that petitioner Estelito V. Remolona is the
Postmaster at the Postal Office Service in Infanta, Quezon,
while his wife Nery Remolona is a teacher at the Kiborosa
Elementary School.
3
In a letter dated January 3, 1991, Francisco R. America,
District Supervisor of the Department of Education,
Culture & Sports at Infanta, Quezon, inquired from the
Civil Service Commission (CSC) as to the status of the civil
service eligibility of Mrs. Remolona who purportedly got a
rating of 81.25% as per Report of
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero with Cui and

Aliño-Hormachuelos, JJ., concurring; Rollo, 34-47.
2 Rollo, 49.
3 Exhibit “A”; Rollo, 54.
308

4
Rating issued by the National Board for Teachers. Mr.
America likewise disclosed that he received information
that Mrs. Remolona was campaigning for a fee of P8,000.00
per examinee for a passing mark in the teacher’s board
examinations.—
On February 11, 1991, then CSC Chairman Patricia A.
Sto. Tomas issued an Order directing CSC Region IV
Director Bella Amilhasan to conduct an investigation on
Mrs. Remolona’s eligibility, after verification from the
Register of Eligibles in the Office for Central Personnel

Records revealed “that Remolona’s name is not in the list of
passing and failing examinees, and that the list of
examinees for December 10, 1989 does not include the
name of Remolona. Furthermore, Examination No. 061285
as indicated in her report of rating belongs to a certain
Marlou C. Madelo, who took the examination
5
in Cagayan
de Oro and got a rating of 65.00%.”
During the preliminary investigation conducted by
Jaime G. Pasion, Director II, Civil Service Field Office,
Lucena City, Quezon, only petitioner Remolona
6
appeared.
He signed a written statement of facts regarding the
issuance of the questioned Report of Rating of Mrs.7
Remolona, which is summarized in the Memorandum
submitted by Director Pasion as follows:
“3.1 That sometime in the first week of September,

1990, while riding in a Kapalaran Transit Bus from
Sta. Cruz, Laguna on his way to San Pablo City, he
met one Atty. Hadji Salupadin (this is how it
sounded) who happened to be sitting beside him;
3.2 That a conversation broke out between them until
he was able to confide his problem to Atty.
Salupadin about his wife having difficulty in
acquiring an eligibility;
3.3 That Atty. Salupadin who represented himself as
working at the Batasan, offered his help for a fee of
P3,000.00;
3.4 That the following day they met at the Batasan
where he gave the amount of P2,000.00,
requirements, application form and picture of his
wife;
_______________
4 Exhibit “C”; Ibid., 56.

5 Exhibit “B”; Ibid., 55.
6 Exhibit “E-1”; Ibid., 60.
7 Exhibit “E”; Ibid., 58-59.
309
VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 309

3.5 That the following week, Thursday, at around 1:00

P.M., they met again at the Batasan where he
handed to Atty. Salupadin the amount of P1,000.00

plus P500.00 bonus who in turn handed to him the
Report of Rating of one Nery C. Remolona with a
passing grade, then they parted;
3.6 That sometime in the last week of September, he
showed the Report of Rating to the District
Supervisor, Francisco America who informed her
(sic) that there was no vacancy;
3.7 That he went to Lucena City and complained to Dr.
Magsino in writing x x x that Mr. America is asking
for money in exchange for the appointment of his
wife but failed to make good his promise. He
attached the corroborating affidavits of Mesdames
Carmelinda Pradillada and Rosemarie P.
Romantico and Nery C. Remolona x x x;
3.8 That from 1986 to 1988, Mr. America was able to
get six (6) checks at P2,600.00 each plus bonus of
Nery C. Remolona;
3.9 That Mr. America got mad at them. And when he
felt that Mr. America would verify the authenticity
of his wife’s Report of Rating, he burned the
original.”
Furthermore, Remolona admitted that he was responsible

in acquiring the alleged fake eligibility, that his wife has no
knowledge thereof, and that he did it because he wanted
them to be together. Based on the foregoing, Director
Pasion recommended the filing of the appropriate
administrative action against Remolona but absolved Mrs.
Nery Remolona from any liability since it has not been
shown that she willfully participated in the commission of
the offense.
Consequently, a Formal Charge dated April 6, 1993 was
filed against petitioner Remolona, Nery C. Remolona, and
Atty. Hadji Salupadin for possession
8
of fake eligibility,
falsification and dishonesty. A formal hearing ensued
wherein the parties presented their respective evidence.
Thereafter, CSC Regional Director Bella A. Amilhasan
issued a Memorandum dated February 14, 1995
recommending that the spouses Estelito and Nery
Remolona be found guilty as charged and be meted the
corresponding penalty.
_______________
8 Annex B, Petition; Rollo, 50.

9 Original Record, 1.
310

Said recommendation was adopted by the CSC which

issued Resolution No. 95-2908 on April 20, 1995, finding
the spouses Estelito and Nery Remolona guilty of
dishonesty and imposing the penalty of dismissal and all
its accessory penalties. The case against Atty. Hadji
Salupadin10
was held in abeyance pending
11
proof of his
identity. In its Resolution No. 965510 dated August 27,
1996, the CSC, acting on the motion for reconsideration
filed by the spouses Remolona, absolved Nery Remolona
from liability and held that:
“Further, a review of the records and of the arguments presented

fails to persuade this Commission to reconsider its earlier
resolution insofar as Estelito Remolona’s culpability is concerned.
The evidence is substantial enough to effect his conviction. His act
of securing a fake eligibility for his wife is proved by substantial
evidence. However, in the case of Nery Remolona, the Commission
finds her innocent of the offense charged, for there is no evidence
to show that she has used the fake eligibility to support an
appointment or promotion. In fact, Nery Remolona did not
indicate in her Personal Data Sheet that she possesses any
eligibility. It must be pointed out that it was her husband who
unilaterally worked to secure a fake eligibility for her.
WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is
hereby denied insofar as respondent Estelito Remolona is
concerned. However, Resolution No. 95-2908 is modified in the
sense that respondent Nery Remolona is exonerated of the
charges. Accordingly, Nery Remolona is automatically reinstated
to her former position as Teacher with back salaries and other
benefits.”
On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered its questioned

decision dismissing the petition for review filed by herein
petitioner Remolona. His motion for reconsideration and/or
new trial was likewise denied. Hence, this petition for
review.
Petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals erred:
“1. in denying petitioner’s motion for new trial;

2. in holding that petitioner is liable for dishonesty;
and
_______________
10 Annex F, Petition; Rollo, 76-79.

11 Annex G, id.; Ibid., 80-85.
311
VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 311

3. in sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner for an

offense not work connected in relation to his official
position in the government service.”
The main issue posed for resolution is whether a civil

service employee can be dismissed from the government
service for an offense which is not work-related or which is
not connected with the performance of his official duty.
Remolona likewise imputes a violation of his right to due
process during the preliminary investigation because he
was not assisted by counsel. He claims that the extra-
judicial admission allegedly signed by him is inadmissible
because he was merely made to sign a blank form. He also
avers that his motion for new trial should be granted on
the ground that the transcript of stenographic notes taken
during the hearing of the case before the Regional Office of
the CSC was not forwarded to the Court of Appeals.
Finally, he pleads that the penalty of dismissal with
forfeiture of all benefits is too harsh considering the nature
of the offense for which he was convicted, the length of his
service in government, that this is his first offense, and the
fact that no damage was caused to the government.
The submission of Remolona that his alleged
extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because he was not
assisted by counsel during the investigation as required
under Section 12 paragraphs 1 and 3, Article III of the
1987 Constitution deserves scant consideration.
The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of
Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case
under custodial investigation. Custodial investigation is
the stage where the police investigation is no longer a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to
focus on a particular suspect who had been taken into
custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation
that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. It is
when questions are initiated by law enforcement officers
after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of such

investigation. Therefore, the exclusionary rule under
paragraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies
312

only to admissions made in a criminal investigation12

but not
to those made in an administrative investigation.
While investigations conducted by an administrative
body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the
fact remains that under existing laws, a party in an
administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by
counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the
respondent’s capacity to represent himself, and no duty
rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated
with counsel. In an administrative proceeding, a
respondent has the option of engaging the services of
counsel or not. This is clear from the provisions of Section
32, Article VII of Republic Act No. 2260 (otherwise known
as the Civil Service Act) and Section 39, paragraph 2, Rule
XIV (on discipline) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise known as
the Administrative Code of 1987). Thus, the right to
counsel is not always imperative in administrative
investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely
to determine whether there are facts that merit
disciplinary measure against erring public officers and
employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of
government service. As such, the hearing conducted by the
investigating13 authority is not part of a criminal
prosecution.
In the case at bar, Remolona was not accused of any
crime in the investigation conducted by the CSC field office.
The investigation was conducted for the purpose of
ascertaining the facts and whether there is a prima facie
evidence sufficient to form a belief that an offense
cognizable by the CSC has been committed and that
Remolona is probably guilty thereof and should be
administratively charged. Perforce, the admissions made
by Remolona during such investigation may be used as
evidence to justify his dismissal.
The contention of Remolona that he never executed an
extrajudicial admission and that he merely signed a blank
form cannot be given credence. Remolona occupies a high
position in government as Postmaster at Infanta, Quezon

and, as such, he is ex-
_______________
12 Manuel, et al. vs. N.C. Constructions Supply, et al., 282 SCRA 326,
334-335 (1997).
13 Lumiqued, et al. vs. Exevea, et al., 282 SCRA 125, 140-142 (1997).
313
VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 313

pected to be circumspect in his actions specially where he is

being administratively charged with a grave offense which
carries the penalty of dismissal from service.
Remolona insists that his dismissal is a violation of his
right to due process under Section 2(3), Article XI (B) of the
Constitution which provides that “no officer or employee in
the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for
cause.” Although the offense of dishonesty is punishable
under the Civil Service law, Remolona opines that such act
must have been committed in the performance of his
function and duty as Postmaster. Considering that the
charge of dishonesty involves the falsification of the
certificate of rating of his wife Nery Remolona, the same
has no bearing on his office and hence, he is deemed not to
have been dismissed for cause. This proposition is
untenable.
It cannot be denied that dishonesty is considered a grave
offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense under
Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of
Executive Order No. 292. And the rule is that dishonesty,
in order to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the
course of the performance of duty by the person charged.
The rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or
employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave
misconduct, even if said defects of character are not
connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in
office. The Government cannot tolerate in its service a
dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly
and well, because by reason of his government position, he
is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of
dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and
entities of the government other than the office where he is
employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and
possesses a certain influence and power which renders the
victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty

less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his
evil acts and actuations. The private life of an employee
cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty
inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee
to continue
14
in office and the discipline and morale of the
service.
_______________
14 Nera vs. Garcia, et al., 106 Phil. 1031,1035-1036 (1960).
314

The principle is that when an officer or employee is

disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such
officer or employee but the improvement of the public
service and the preservation15 of the public’s faith and
confidence in the government.
The general rule is that where the findings of the
administrative body are amply supported by substantial
evidence, such findings are accorded not only 16
respect but
also finality, and are binding on this Court. It is not for
the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence,
determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise
substitute its own judgment for that of the17administrative
agency on the sufficiency of evidence. Thus, when
confronted with conflicting versions of factual matters, it is
for the administrative agency concerned in the exercise of
discretion to determine which party 18
deserves credence on
the basis of the evidence received. The rule, therefore, is
that courts of justice will not generally interfere with
purely administrative matters which are addressed to the
sound discretion of government agencies unless there is a
clear showing that the latter acted arbitrarily or with grave
abuse of discretion or when they have acted in a capricious
and whimsical manner such 19
that their action may amount
to an excess of jurisdiction.
We have carefully scrutinized the records of the case
below and we find no compelling reason to deviate from the
findings of the CSC and the Court of Appeals. The written
admission of Remolona is replete with details that could
have been known only to him. No ill-motive or bad faith
was ever imputed to Director Pasion who conducted the
investigation. The presumption that official duty has been

regularly performed remains unrebutted.
The transmittal of the transcript of stenographic notes
taken during the formal hearing before the CSC is entirely
a matter of
_______________
15 Bautista vs. Negado, et al., 108 Phil. 283, 289 (1960).

16 Tiatco vs. CSC, et al., 216 SCRA 749 (1992).
17 Paper Industries Corp. of the Phils, vs. Deputy Executive Secretary,
184 SCRA 606 (1990).
18 Gelmart Industries (Phil.), Inc. vs. Leogardo, Jr., et al., 155 SCRA
403(1987).
19 Cuerdo vs. Commission on Audit, 166 SCRA 657 (1988).
315
VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 315

discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. Revised

Administrative Circular No. 1-95 of this Court clearly
states that in resolving appeals from quasi-judicial
agencies, it is within the discretion of the Court of Appeals
to have the original records 20
of the proceedings under
review transmitted to it. Verily, the Court of Appeals
decided the merits of the case on the bases of the
uncontroverted facts and admissions contained in the
pleadings filed by the parties.
We likewise find no merit in the contention of Remolona
that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh considering that
there was no damage caused to the government since the
certificate of rating was never used to get an appointment
for his wife, Nery Remolona. Although no pecuniary
damage was incurred by the government, there was still
falsification of an official document that constitutes gross
dishonesty which cannot be countenanced, considering that
he was 21an accountable officer and occupied a sensitive
position. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees enunciates the State policy
of promoting a high standard 22of ethics and utmost
responsibility in the public service.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing,

Pardo, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur. Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Melo, Panganiban and
Buena, JJ., On official leave.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., On leave.
Judgment affirmed in toto.
_______________
20 Torres, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 278 SCRA 793, 809
(1997).
21 Regalado vs. Buena, 309 SCRA 265, 270 (1999).
22 Alawi vs. Alauva, 268 SCRA 628 (1997).
316

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission
Notes.—Disciplinary sanctions may not be imposed on

any employee by his employer until and unless the
employee has been accorded due process, by which is meant
that the latter must be informed of the offenses ascribed to
him and afforded adequate time and opportunity to explain
his side. The requirement entails the making of
statements, oral or written, by the employee under such
administrative investigation in his defense, with
opportunity to solicit the assistance of counsel, or his
colleagues and friends. The employee may, of course, refuse
to submit any statement at the investigation, that is his
privilege. But if he should opt to do so, in his defense to the
accusation against him, it would be absurd to reject his
statements, whether at the administrative investigation, or
at a subsequent criminal action brought against him,
because he had not been accorded, prior to his making and
presenting them, his “Miranda rights” (to silence and to
counsel and to be informed thereof, etc.) which, to repeat,
are relevant only in custodial investigations. (People vs.
Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 [1989])
A person under normal audit examination is not under
custodial investigation. An audit examiner himself can
hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement officer
contemplated in the above rule. (Navallo vs.
Sandiganbayan, 234 SCRA 175 [1994])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Remolona v. CSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remolona v. CSC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remolona v. CSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 362

304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ESTELITO V. REMOLONA, petitioner, vs. CIVIL

Administrative Law; Public Officers; Right to Counsel; The

counsel is not always imperative in administrative investigations

VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 305

Remolona vs. Civil Service Commission

ing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be

made by Remolona during such investigation may be used as

306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remolona vs. Civil Service Commission

Same; Judicial Review; The rule is that courts of justice will

VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 307

Remolona vs. Civil Service Commission

transmittal of the transcript of stenographic notes taken during

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The present petition seeks to review and set aside the

1 Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero with Cui and

308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Register of Eligibles in the Office for Central Personnel

“3.1 That sometime in the first week of September,

4 Exhibit “C”; Ibid., 56.

VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 309

3.5 That the following week, Thursday, at around 1:00

handed to Atty. Salupadin the amount of P1,000.00

Furthermore, Remolona admitted that he was responsible

8 Annex B, Petition; Rollo, 50.

310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Said recommendation was adopted by the CSC which

“Further, a review of the records and of the arguments presented

On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered its questioned

“1. in denying petitioner’s motion for new trial;

10 Annex F, Petition; Rollo, 76-79.

VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 311

3. in sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner for an

The main issue posed for resolution is whether a civil

The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of such

312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

only to admissions made in a criminal investigation12

position in government as Postmaster at Infanta, Quezon

VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 313

pected to be circumspect in his actions specially where he is

victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty

14 Nera vs. Garcia, et al., 106 Phil. 1031,1035-1036 (1960).

314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The principle is that when an officer or employee is

investigation. The presumption that official duty has been

15 Bautista vs. Negado, et al., 108 Phil. 283, 289 (1960).

VOL. 362, AUGUST 2, 2001 315

discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. Revised

Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing,

Judgment affirmed in toto.

316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Notes.—Disciplinary sanctions may not be imposed on

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like