[A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387.

September 10, 1997]

FLAVIANO B. CORTES, Complainant, vs. JUDGE SEGUNDO B. CATRAL, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Aparri, Cagayan, respondent.

A sworn letter complaint was filed by Flaviano Cortes charging Judge Segundo B. Catral of the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan with Gross Ignorance of the Law
committed as follows:

Facts(Allegations) Contentions of Judge Castral Ruling of the Court

He granted bail in murder cases without hearing: Respondent stresses that the provincial The records do not reveal whether a hearing was
People v. Duerme, et al., Criminal Case No. 07-893 prosecutor recommended P 200,000.00 as actually conducted on the application for bail
for murder and People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, bailbond for each of the accused. Subsequently, although respondent judge implies that there was
Criminal Case No. 08-866 for murder in a motion for reduction of bailbond, the one, stating that acting on this recommendation
resolution of the motion was submitted to the of the provincial prosecutor and taking into
These two cases are like the case of Teresita Q. sound discretion of the court. The court, mindful account the guidelines prescribed in Section 9 of
Tucay v. Judge Roger Domagas, 242 SCRA 110 of the fact that the prosecution is banking on Administrative Circular 12-94, the court issued a
being classified as heinous crimes there (sic) are weak circumstantial evidence and guided by the warrant of arrest and fixed the amount
supposedly unbailable; factors prescribed in Section 9 of Administrative of P200,000.00 for the provisional liberty of each
Circular 12-944 issued an order for reduction of of the accused.18 
the bailbond from P200,000.00 to P50,000.00
Respondent judge insists that in the aforecited
In the case of People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, cases, a hearing was actually conducted on the
Criminal Case 08-866 for murder, the inquest application and motion for reduction of bail, but
judge issued a warrant of arrest for the accused the public prosecutor opted not to introduce
with no bail recommended. When the case was evidence and submitted the resolution of the
elevated to the Regional Trial Court upon petition, as well as the motion for reduction of
information filed by the provincial prosecutor, the bail, to the sound discretion of the court instead.
information made no mention of a bailbond. In
the hearing of the petition to determine whether Respondent observed that since it is a basic
or not the evidence of guilt is strong, the fiscal principle of procedure that the prosecution of
opted not to introduce evidence and criminal cases is under the direct control and
recommended bail in the sum of P200,000.00 supervision of the fiscal or prosecutor, would it be
instead. Respondent judge acting on the said procedurally proper for the court to compel
recommendation and again guided by the prosecutor Apolinar Carrao, the public prosecutor
provision of Section 9, Administrative Circular 12- assigned in the case of People v. Rodrigo
94 in conjunction with the evidence extant on the Bumanlag, Criminal Case No. 08-866, to prove the
record approved the recommendation of evidence of guilt of the accused for the crime of
Prosecutor Apolinar Carrao. 6 A duplicate copy of murder when the prosecutor candidly admitted in
trial prosecutor Apolinar Carraos letter dated open court that in his honest view, the strength of
September 3, 1996 addressed to the provincial evidence on hand for the state can only prove the
prosecutor Romeo Sacquing was presented by the crime of homicide and not murder
respondent to disprove the accusation that he
granted bail to the accused without conducting In the recent case of Inocencio Basco v. Judge Leo
any hearing.7 M. Rapatalo,27 this court ruled that x x x the judge
is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases
where the prosecution chooses to just file a
comment or leave the application of bail to the
sound discretion of the court. A hearing is
likewise required if the prosecution refuses to
adduce evidence in opposition to the application
to grant and fix bail. The importance of a hearing
has been emphasized in not a few cases wherein
the court ruled that, even if the prosecution
refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose
an objection to the motion for bail, it is still
mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or
ask searching questions from which it may infer
the strength of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of
it against the accused.

The reason for this is plain. Inasmuch as the

determination of whether or not the evidence of
guilt against the accused is strong is a matter of
judicial discretion, It may rightly be exercised only
after the evidence is submitted to the court at the
hearing. Since the discretion is directed to the
weight of evidence and since evidence cannot
properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or
produced before the court,28 it is obvious that a
proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that
the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court,
the petitioner having the right of cross
examination and to introduce evidence in his own
rebuttal.29chan
 The procedural lapse of respondent judge is
aggravated by the fact that even though the
accused in Criminal Case No. 07-874, People v.
Ahmed Duerme, have yet to be arrested,
respondent already fixed bail in the sum
of P200,000.00. Respondent evidently knew that
the accused were still at large as he even had to
direct their arrest in the same order where he
simultaneously granted them bail.35 At this
juncture, there is a need to reiterate the basic
principle that the right to bail can only be availed
of by a person who is in custody of the law or
otherwise deprived of his liberty36 and it would be
premature, not to say incongruous, to file a
petition for bail for some whose freedom has yet
to be curtailed.
On May 3, 1995, Barangay Captain Rodolfo The bailbond recommended by the prosecutor Respondent judge, in granting and subsequently
Castanedas Criminal Case No. 11-6250 for Illegal was P180,000.00. Accused, through counsel Atty. reducing the recommended bailbond
Possession of Firearm was raffled and assigned to Bulseco, filed a motion for reduction of the of P180,000.00 considered the fact that there was
his sala. The provincial prosecutor granted a bailbond to P30,000.00. Counsel even vouched no corpus of the crime as no firearm was taken
bailbond of P180,000.00 but it was reduced by and guaranteed the appearance of the accused in from the possession of the accused, as well as the
Judge Segundo Catral for only P30,000.00.  court, whenever required. The motion for fact that counsel for the accused vouched and
reduction of bailbond was submitted without guaranteed the appearance of the accused in
This Barangay Captain Rodolfo Castaneda is one serious opposition and the prosecutor mindful court whenever required.37 Moreover, records
of the goons of Julio Bong Decierto his nephew perhaps that there is no corpus of the crime as no show that, contrary to the allegations of the
who has a pending murder case firearm was caught or taken from the possession complainant, the trial of the case had already
of the accused merely submitted the same to the been set for hearing but on more than one
discretion of the court. occasion, the defense counsel, as well as the
prosecutor, both moved to have it
reset.38chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Captain Nilo de Rivera with a homicide case was Respondent judge says that the bailbond Respondent judge stresses that the amount was
granted with a bailbond of P14,800.00 by Judge of P14,800.00 was recommended by the acting recommended by the prosecutor and not motu
Segundo Catral. The amount is too low. It is Officer-In-Charge (OIC) as contained in his propio by the trial court. Respondent added that
because this Nilo de Rivera is another goon of manifestation accompanying the the amount of bail was appropriate inasmuch as it
Julio Bong Decierto; information.9 Respondent judge then acting on was fixed in accordance with the guidelines set
the recommendation of the OIC provincial forth in Section 9 of Administrative Circular 12-94.
prosecutor and mindful of the guidelines in fixing As long as in fixing the amount of bail, the court is
a reasonable amount of bailbond coupled by the guided by the purpose for which bail is required,
 fact that the evidence on record is merely that is, to secure the appearance of the accused
circumstantial and there was no eyewitness to to answer charges brought against him, the
the commission of crime granted bailbond in the decision of the court to grant bail in the sum it
sum of P14,800.00 deems appropriate will not be interfered with.
Jimmy Siriban the right hand man of Julio Bong Respondent judge says the accusation regarding With respect to the last charge, we adopt the
Dicierto was sued for concubinage and convicted the acquittal of one Jimmy Siriban is simply the findings of the office of the Court Administrator
by Judge Herminio del Castillo in MTC. Jimmy product of a dirty imagination and is a dirty trick that there is nothing in the record to substantiate
Siriban appealed and it was elevated to the RTC intended to defame the name of his family by the allegation of the complainant that the
Branch 08, the sala of Judge Segundo Catral. rumor mongers who are unwilling to come out in acquittal of a certain Jimmy Siriban by respondent
Judge Segundo Catral acquitted Jimmy Siriban, the open to substantiate their accusation judge was tainted with irregularity. Other than his
rumors in Aparri spread that the wife of Judge bare allegation, complainant has yet to present
Segundo Catral went to Jimmy Siribans house to evidence as to any irregularity committed by
get the envelop; respondent judge in acquitting Mr. Siriban.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the complaint saying that there is nothing in the allegations of the complainant that
would warrant the imposition of administrative sanction against respondent judge.

In recommending the dismissal of the complaint against respondent judge, the Office of the Court Administrator noted, x x x complainant failed to show
any indication that bad faith motivated the actuation of the respondent in granting and reducing the amount of bail of the accused in some of the criminal
cases that were assigned in his sala. x x x it is crystal clear that the increase or reduction of bail rests in the sound discretion of the court depending upon
the particular circumstances of the case. It should be noted further that the reduction in the amount of bail of the accused in the criminal cases in question
were all done by the respondent with the knowledge and conformity of the Public Prosecutor concerned. Moreover, the actions taken by the respondent
were in the exercise of judicial discretion that may not be assailed in an administrative proceedings (sic).

Issue: Whether or not Respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

Ruling: Yes. (please refer to table)

In sum, the Court find respondent Judge Segundo B. Catral guilty of gross ignorance of the law for having granted bail to the accused in Criminal Cases No.
07-874 and 08-866 without having conducted the requisite hearing. It is indeed surprising, not to say, alarming, that the Court should be besieged with a
number of administrative cases filed against erring judges involving bail. After all, there is no dearth of jurisprudence on the basic principles involving bail.
As a matter of fact, the Court itself, through its Philippine Judicial Academy, has been including lectures on the subject in the regular seminars conducted
for judges. Be that as it may, the ourt reiterate the following duties of the trial judge in case an application for bail is filed:

1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his
recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as amended);
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra)

3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution;

4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bailbond (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be
denied.39chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Respondent Judge Segundo B. Catral is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine P20,000.00 with the WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the
future will be dealt with more severely.

G.R. No. 153166 December 16, 2005

TERESITA L. VERTUDES,1 Petitioner,
vs.
JULIE BUENAFLOR and BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Respondents.

FACTS CONTENTIONS OF VERTUDES ANTECEDENTS

Petitioner Teresita L. Vertudes was a fingerprint Petitioner assailed the credibility of Villas. She Commissioner Rodriguez issued Personnel Order
examiner at the Alien Registration Division of the alleged that Villas was not a member of the No. RBR 98-60,7 preventively suspending her for
Bureau of Immigration (BI). In a facsimile National Press Club as he claimed to be. She sixty (60) days pending the investigation of the
letter4 dated July 27, 1998, a certain Peng Villas, a averred that the sum of ₱50,000.00, as evidenced case. The instant case was assigned to Special
news editor of the Philippine Weekly Newspaper, by SB Check Nos. 0014797 and 0014798, was Prosecutor Norberto dela Cruz, who issued a
referred to then BI Commissioner Rufus Rodriguez extended to her by private respondent Buenaflor subpoena8 ordering private respondent and
the complaints of private respondent Julie as a loan. petitioner to appear before him on October 15,
Buenaflor, Amy Cosino and Manuelito Lao, against 1998 for the formal investigation of the case.
petitioner. She was constrained to borrow money from
private respondent and other close friends when It appears that in the meantime, Villas died and
According to Villas, private respondent Buenaflor her brother became seriously ill. However, she private respondent personally took on the instant
complained of having been convinced by petitioner claimed that she had fully settled her obligation to complaint with the BI for Grave Misconduct against
into paying the total amount of ₱79,000.00 in private respondent through installment. petitioner, docketed as Administrative Charge No.
exchange for the processing of her visa, passport 0004. Lao and Cosino filed their respective
and other travel documents for Japan. Private She also claimed that private respondent was the complaint-affidavits9 with the BI which became the
respondent delivered to petitioner Security Bank one engaged in illegal recruitment through the use subject of another administrative case against
of falsified or forged passports. Private respondent petitioner.10
 was allegedly using petitioner’s name in dealing
(SB) Check Nos. 0014797 and 0014798 in the with some immigration officials and employees to On August 21, 1998, petitioner filed a Motion for
amounts of ₱30,000.00 and ₱20,000.00, expedite the processing of the documents of her Reconsideration (Re: Personnel Order No. RBR-98-
respectively, and cash worth ₱29,000.00. However, (private respondent’s) clients. Petitioner allegedly 60) with Motion to Dismiss.11 
no visa was delivered. Private respondent insisted informed said officers and employees that she was
that petitioner return her money, to no avail. not connected to private respondent in any way. On September 2, 1998, petitioner filed a
Private respondent allegedly resented this "abrupt Manifestation with Urgent Prayer to Resolve
Villas also referred to Commissioner Rodriguez the disassociation." Also, her repeated refusal to Motion to Dismiss,12 averring that the complaint
complaint of Lao who allegedly told him that he "escort" private respondent's clients who were instituted by Villas in behalf of private respondent
paid ₱60,000.00 to petitioner in exchange for a leaving for abroad using falsified travel documents was a harassment case against her.
Chinese Visa and a passport for Taiwan. Likewise, allegedly led private respondent to threaten her
Villas referred Cosino’s complaint that the latter that she could easily use SB Check Nos. 0014797 Thus, in his Resolution dated November 12,
collected from Virfinia Dumbrique, Jaime Santos and 0014798 as evidence to file charges against 1998,23 Special Prosecutor dela Cruz found
Flores and Mariano Evangelista, the amounts of petitioner by making it appear that she (private petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and
₱20,000.00 each, upon petitioner's word that they respondent) gave the money because of recommended her dismissal from the service.
would be in exchange for tourist visas. Both Lao petitioner's promise to facilitate her travel to
and Cosino claimed that the promised passport Japan. Petitioner denied having received the sum Meantime, the case instituted by private
and visas did not materialize and despite many of ₱29,000.00 from private respondent, respondent with the Office of the Ombudsman was
requests for the return of the amounts paid to contending that such claim is "pure falsehood referred to the Office of the City Prosecutor, thus:
petitioner, she refused to comply. Allegedly, because of the absence of document to prove the
"Vertudez threatened them that they cannot force alleged receipt."
After evaluation, the undersigned finds that the
her to pay back the said amount as she has the charges imputed against the respondent are not
back up [of] higher BID officials." As regards the complaints of Lao and Cosino,
office related and that the administrative aspect of
petitioner denied having met or known said
the case had already been undertaken by the
persons.
Bureau of Immigration.

In view thereof, it is respectfully recommended

that the instant complaint be referred to the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila for
appropriate action.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Re-open25 with the BI,

contending that the finding of the Ombudsman
that "the charges imputed against [petitioner] are
not office related" 

On January 12, 1999, Commissioner Rodriguez

issued an order, adopting the resolution of Special
Prosecutor dela Cruz, viz: WHEREFORE, respondent
Teresita L. Vertudez is hereby found liable for
grave misconduct under PD No. 807 and the
Administrative Code of 1987. Accordingly, she is
ordered dismissed from the service effective
immediately with forfeiture of all benefits under
the law, with prejudice to her reinstatement in this
Bureau and all its branches.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration

and/or New Trial,29 reiterating her argument in her
Motion to Re-open. Again, the motion was
denied.30 Subsequently, the assailed order of
dismissal was affirmed by then Department of
Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas.31

Petitioner appealed to the CSC,32 raising the issues

of lack of due process and lack of substantial
evidence. On November 19, 1999, the CSC
dismissed petitioner's appeal. It held, in part, that:

A careful study of the records in the light of the

arguments of appellant reveals that the
requirements of due process have been duly
observed in the proceedings had in this case.

xxx

As to the second issue, the Commission finds

substantial evidence to prove that respondent
receive[d] money in exchange for her services in
facilitating the issuance of passport and visa of
Julie Bernardo (sic).

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration 34 of

the CSC's Resolution, to no avail. The CSC held:

In so far as Vertudez'[s] illegal recruitment

activities are concerned, the Commission finds the
existence of clear substantial evidence to establish
the same. Evidence presented all point to the fact
that Vertudez solicited money from BI clients in
return for a visa to Japan. The witnesses against
Vertudez include Peng Villas (Deceased), Julie
Buenflor (sic), Amy Cosino, Virginia Lubriano,
Manuelito Lao and Jaime Santos Flores. The
affidavits of said witnesses all speak of the modus
operandi of Vertudez at the BI, where she
approaches BI clients and offers them a visa,
passport and an employment contract in exchange
for ₱120,000.00. In the case of witness Julie
Buenaflor, she testified that respondent assured
her of a visa, a passport and a job in Japan for a fee
of ₱80,000.00 and that Vertudez after getting paid
failed to fulfill her promise.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for review

before the CA, raising the issues of: a) whether or
not the BI and CSC violated petitioner's right to due
process; b) whether or not respondents erred in
finding that the alleged illegal recruitment activity
of the petitioner had a direct relation to and
connected with the performance of her duties and
responsibilities as an employee of the BI; and c)
whether or not there is substantial evidence to
support the finding that petitioner is an illegal
recruiter, thus, warranting her removal from public
service.36

On February 12, 2002, the CA dismissed the

petition for lack of merit. The CA found that
"petitioner was given more than ample
opportunity to ventilate her defense and disprove
the charges leveled against her, hence, there can
be no denial of her right to due
process."37 Moreover, it held that "there is more
than substantial evidence proving the charge of
grave misconduct against petitioner."38 The CA
ratiocinated that:

In the proceedings a quo, it was established that

petitioner, indeed, received and encashed the two
(2) checks given by private respondent in the total
amount of Php50,000.00. This fact, therefore, gives
credence to the claim of private respondent that
she gave petitioner two (2) checks in consideration
of the latter's promise to facilitate her employment
abroad. This being the case, the burden was
shifted to petitioner to refute this established fact
through equally weighty and competent evidence.

Petitioner filed a Motion for

Reconsideration,40 contending that the CA failed to
resolve the issue of whether petitioner's alleged
illegal recruitment activities are directly connected
with her duties and responsibilities as a Fingerprint
Examiner of the BI. This motion was denied.41
Issues (SC) Undaunted, petitioner filed this
petition, summing up the issues as follows:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE SUPREME

COURT MAY REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 58766;

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS

RESOLVED THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THE
PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED BEFORE IT;

3. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT
PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT;

4. WHETHER OR NOT A PROMISE TO FACILITATE

EMPLOYMENT OF ANOTHER ABROAD
CONSTITUTES GRAVE MISCONDUCT[;]

5. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS ACCORDED

DUE PROCESS;

6. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT CONSTITUTING

GRAVE MISCONDUCT MUST HAVE A DIRECT
RELATION TO THE FUNCTION OF THE PUBLIC
OFFICE HELD BY RESPONDENTS IN
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES; AND

7. WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED ACT

COMMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IS DIRECTLY
RELATED TO ANY OF HER FUNCTIONS AS
FINGERPRINT EXAMINER AT THE BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION.42

SC Rulings
Due Process Petitioner contends that the essential Nothing on record shows that petitioner asked for
requirements of due process as laid down in Ang cross-examination during the formal investigation
Tibay v. Court of Industrial conducted by Special Prosecutor dela Cruz.
Relations43 and Doruelo v. COMELEC44 were
violated in the case at bar. First, she contends that Notably, two hearings were conducted, during
she was denied of her right to a full hearing when which, both private respondent and petitioner
she was not accorded the opportunity to cross- appeared. During the hearing dated October 27,
examine the witnesses against her, as provided 1998, both parties agreed to submit the case for
under Section 48, par. 5, Title I, Book V of the resolution after petitioner submitted her counter-
Administrative Code of 1987. She allegedly raised affidavit and the affidavits of her witnesses.
this issue in her appeal before the CSC
In fact, when petitioner filed her Motion to Re-
open the case with the BI, she did not question the
lack of cross-examination during the investigation
proceedings. She merely based her motion on the
order of the Office of the Ombudsman finding the
charge against her as "not office related." In the
same pleading, she admitted that "[a]s early as
October 27, 1998, the instant administrative action
has been submitted for resolution after the
contending parties have submitted their
respective evidence" and that her move for the re-
opening of the administrative case was merely "to
allow her to adduce further evidence mainly
based on the findings of the Office of the
Ombudsman." Again, in her Motion for
Reconsideration and/or New Trial of Commissioner
Rodriguez's order of dismissal, she merely
reiterated her arguments in her Motion to Re-
open. She never complained that she was deprived
of her right to cross-examination during the
investigation of Special Prosecutor dela Cruz. The
 right to cross-examination being a personal right,
petitioner must be deemed to have waived this
right by agreeing to submit the case for resolution
and not questioning the lack of it in the
proceedings before the BI.

More importantly, it is well-settled that the

essence of due process in administrative
proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side
or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of.47 This was clearly
satisfied in the case at bar. Records show that
petitioner not only gave her sworn written
explanation of the charges against her during the
initial stage of the investigation, she also
submitted: a) a sworn counter-affidavit refuting
the charges against her, with all the attached
annexes as evidence; b) a Motion to Re-open the
case with the BI; c) a Motion for Reconsideration
and/or New Trial with the BI; d) an Appeal to the
CSC; e) a Motion for Reconsideration with the CSC;
f) an Appeal to the CA; g) a Motion for
Reconsideration with the CA; and h) the instant
petition for review.

Commissioner Rodriguez violated the principle that This argument is likewise unavailing.
"the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act
on its or his own independent consideration of the There is nothing essentially wrong in the head of a
law and facts of the controversy and not simply bureau adopting the recommendation of a
accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a subordinate. Section 47, Book V of the
decision" when his denial of her Motion to Re- Administrative Code of 1987 gives the chief of
open and his order finding her guilty of grave bureau or office or department the power to
misconduct were based exclusively on the delegate the task of investigating a case to a
resolution of Special Prosecutor dela Cruz.48 subordinate.49 What due process demands is for
the chief of the bureau to personally weigh and
 assess the evidence which the subordinate has
gathered and not merely to rely on the
recommendation of said investigating officer.50

In the case at bar, the order of Commissioner

Rodriguez enjoys the disputable presumption that
official duties have been regularly performed. That
his decision quotes the resolution of Special
Prosecutor dela Cruz does not necessarily imply
that he did not personally examine the affidavits
and evidence presented by the parties. Petitioner's
bare assertion that Commissioner Rodriguez did
not personally examine the evidence, without
more, is not sufficient to overcome this
presumption.

Petitioner contends that the CSC did not have basis Again, these arguments fail to impress.
in finding: a) that the affidavits of "Peng Villas
(Deceased), Julie Buenaflor, Amy Cosino, Virginia It is settled that only questions of law are
Lubriano, Manuelito Lao and Jaime Santos Flores x entertained in petitions for review
x x all speak of the modus operandi of Vertudez at on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
the BI" as these affidavits were not submitted to Court.53 It is not the function of this Court, in a
the CSC; and b) that petitioner "solicited money petition under Rule 45, to scrutinize, weigh and
from BI clients" inasmuch as private respondent analyze evidence all over again.54 Well-settled is the
never alleged that she was a BI client. Moreover, rule that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial
the CSC's finding that private respondent "testified agencies, like the BI and the CSC, are accorded not
that respondent assured her of a visa, a passport only respect but even finality if such findings are
and a job in Japan for a fee of ₱80,000.00 and that supported by substantial evidence.55 Substantial
Vertudez, after getting paid, failed to fulfill her evidence is such amount of relevant evidence
promise" is not supported by the complaint- which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
affidavit of private respondent which merely stated to support a conclusion, even if other equally
that petitioner "volunteered to work-out and reasonable minds might conceivably opine
facilitate the processing of [private respondent's] otherwise.56
passport and visa" and that petitioner "has a
brother in Japan who could also help [private In the case at bar, we note that contrary to
respondent] find a job."51 Petitioner also assails the
failure of the BI and CSC to consider the petitioner's stance, the affidavits of Lao and Cosino
handwritten joint sworn statement of media do appear in the records of the CSC.57 In any case,
practitioners Cloma and Romero and the joint the affidavits of Villas, Cosino, Lubriano, Lao and
affidavit of the housemaids of petitioner, Compo Flores are of little relevance to the case at bar. If
and Reyes. any, they are merely corroborating evidence. Note
that it was only in the CSC's resolution on
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration that said
affidavits were mentioned. These affidavits were
not used as basis for the decision rendered by the
BI, the main decision of the CSC denying the appeal
of petitioner and the decision of the CA.

We find the unanimous finding of guilt of the BI,

the CSC and the CA amply supported by the
following evidence on record: a) the complaint-
affidavit of private respondent; b) the affidavit of
Jessilyn Gutierrez; c) copies of the passport and
application for a visa of petitioner's son; d) copies
of SB Check Nos. 0014797 and 0014798; and e)
letter of private respondent's counsel to petitioner
demanding from petitioner the refund of the
₱79,000.00 that private respondent paid to
petitioner.

As to the other contentions, we note that in

addition to the self-serving quotations of petitioner
from the complaint-affidavit of private respondent,
said complaint-affidavit categorically alleged that
petitioner told private respondent that the latter
would "be receiving a salary of one lapad per day
as a factory worker and that should [she] accept
[petitioner's] offer, all that [would] be required of
[her was] to give [petitioner] the amount of
₱80,000.00." Private respondent also categorically
alleged that she was charging petitioner for her
"failure to make good her promise to deploy [her]
 after receiving the amount of ₱79,000.00 in
consideration of a job placement in Japan." Thus,
contrary to petitioner's stance, the assailed
findings of the CSC are supported by private
respondent's complaint-affidavit.

Moreover, it is well-settled that it is not for the

appellate court to substitute its own judgment for
that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency
of the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses. Administrative decisions on matters
within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and
can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of
discretion, fraud or error of law. None of these
vices has been shown in this case.58

Whether petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct Citing Sarigumba v. Pasok,59 petitioner contends The allegations in private respondent’s complaint-
warranting her removal from government service. that "[m]isconduct, warranting removal from office affidavit indicate that petitioner used her position
of a public officer, must have a direct relation to as a BI employee to assure private respondent that
and connected with the performance of official she could facilitate petitioner's deployment to
duties, amounting either to maladministration or Japan. Private respondent alleged that "during one
willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge of those times that [she] dropped by [petitioner's]
the duties of the office." Since the BI is a office, [petitioner] intimated to [her] that a group
government agency principally responsible for the of Immigration officers [were] scheduled to leave
administration and enforcement of immigration, for Japan for training and that [petitioner] was
citizenship and alien admission and registration the one who received a call from a Japanese
laws, "by no stretch of imagination" can there be a Consul." Petitioner "asked [private respondent] if
direct relation between the function of a [she was] interested in going to Japan
fingerprint examiner and the alleged promise to because [petitioner] will find a way to
facilitate private respondent's employment accommodate [her]."
abroad.60 Petitioner also capitalizes on the
allegation of private respondent in her complaint- Even petitioner's own admissions show that her
affidavit that she and petitioner "became friends" position as an employee of the BI may be utilized
to contend that the acts being imputed against her in connection with illegal recruitment. In her
are personal and not office-related.61 memorandum to Commissioner Rodriguez, as
 reiterated in her counter-affidavit, petitioner
alleged that private respondent was engaged in
illegal recruitment and "was using [petitioner's]
name in her dealings with some immigration
officials and employees, presumably to expedite
the processing of the documents belonging to her
clients." Petitioner likewise claimed that she
"declined [private respondent's] proposal that
[she] 'escort' some of [private respondent's]
clients who would be leaving for foreign countries
but with falsified travel documents." Private
respondent even told her that the "proposed
scheme could easily be done because being an
employee of this Bureau, [petitioner has] several
connections not only at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport (NAIA) but also in Mactan
International Airport."

That her position is designated as "fingerprint

examiner" is not determinative of the issue of
whether the charge against her is work-related.
The allegations in the complaint against petitioner
and her own admissions show that her duties go
beyond her job title and that the charge against
her is connected with her position as an employee
of the BI.

Petitioner contends that "a promise to find a way Misconduct has been defined as an intentional
to accommodate private respondent and a wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law
representation that petitioner has a brother who or standard of behavior, especially by a
could help private respondent find a job are not government official.62 As distinguished from simple
misconduct warranting the dismissal of petitioner misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear
from office" but, "[a]t most," only "entitle[s] intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of
private respondent to civil indemnity." Petitioner established rule, must be manifest in a charge of
contends that the CA's finding that petitioner grave misconduct.63 Corruption, as an element of
 merely made a "promise to facilitate" private grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official
respondent's employment abroad, as distinguished or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully
from the CSC's finding that petitioner committed uses his station or character to procure some
"shameful illegal recruitment activities," practically benefit for himself or for another person, contrary
absolved petitioner from the charge of grave to duty and the rights of others.64 An act need not
misconduct. be tantamount to a crime for it to be considered as
grave misconduct as in fact, crimes involving moral
turpitude are treated as a separate ground for
dismissal under the Administrative Code.65

In the case at bar, petitioner cannot downplay the charges against her. Whether the charges against petitioner satisfy the elements of illegal recruitment to
make her criminally liable for such crime is not the issue at bar.

At the very least, petitioner was found to have taken advantage of her position as an employee of the BI to falsely promise, for pecuniary gain, the facilitation
of private respondent's travel to Japan, including the processing of her passport, visa and other travel documents. Worse, she was found to have refused to
reimburse the amounts paid to her by private respondent even when the promised passport, visa, and travel documents did not materialize. Undoubtedly,
these acts involve "corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule." Under Section 23(c), Rule XIV the Omnibus Civil Service
Rules and Regulations, these acts constitute a grave offense for which petitioner must suffer the penalty of dismissal.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated February 12, 2002 and Resolution dated April 16, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No.
58766 are AFFIRMED.