GSIS vs. Villaviza, G.R. No. 180291, July 27, 2010
P: Jose Catral Mendoza
FACTS: Villaviza et al wearing red shirt
together, marched or appeared simultaneously at or just outside
the office of the Investigation Unit in a rally of protest and support for their
Union Officers which caused alarm and disrupted the work at the Investigation
Unit. This was reported to Garcia, the President and General Manager of GSIS. A
memorandum was given to Villaviza et al requiring them to explain in writing
and under oath within 3 days why they should not be administratively dealt
with.
Garcia filed charges against Villaviza
et. al for Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
the Service. Villaviza et al were again directed to submit their written
answers under oath within 3 days from receipt. None was filed. Garcia issued decisions
finding them guilty of the charges and the penalty of 1 year suspension.
Civil Service Commission (CSC) found
Villaviza guilty of the lesser offense and reduced the penalty to reprimand.
The CSC ruled that they were not denied their right to due process but there
was no substantial evidence to hold them guilty. CA upheld the CSC.
ISSUE: Whether or not administrative due process cannot be
equated with due process in judicial sense authorizes an administrative
tribunal to consider in evidence and give full probative value to unnotarized
letters that did not form part of the case record.
HELD: NO. Under the GSIS'
Amended Policy and Procedural Guidelines No. 178-04, the failure
of a respondent to file an answer merely translates to a waiver of "his
right to file an answer." There is nothing in the rule that says that the
charges are deemed admitted. It has not done away with the burden of the
complainant to prove the charges with clear and convincing evidence.
Rule 8, Section 11 of the Rules of Court
finds application in this case, Garcia must remember that there remain
averments that are not deemed admitted by the failure to deny the same. Among
them are immaterial allegations and incorrect conclusions drawn from facts set
out in the complaint. Thus, even if respondents failed to file their
answer, it does not mean that all averments found in the complaint will be
considered as true and correct in their entirety, and that the forthcoming
decision will be rendered in favor of the petitioners. Even in administrative
proceedings, it is still the complainant, or in this case the petitioners, who
have the burden of proving, with substantial evidence, the allegations in the
complaint or in the formal charges.
A perusal of the decisions of
the CA and of the CSC will reveal that the case was resolved against Garcia
based, not on the absence of Villaviza et al’s evidence, but on the weakness of
that of the petitioners. Thus, the CA wrote:
A review of Garcia's charges
against the Villaviza et al reveals that he himself were not even sure if the
spontaneous act of each of the twenty or so GSIS employees was a concerted one.
The report which was the basis for Garcia's charges reflected such uncertainty.
CA is affirmed.