En Banc
March 14, 2017
G.R. No. 226622
COMMISSION ELECTIONS, Petitioner
vs
BAI HAIDY D. MAMALINTA, Respondent
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated March 11, 2016 and the Resolution3 dated August 26, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 134368, which reversed and set aside the Decision No. 13-09694 dated September 24, 2013 and the Resolution No. 14-001355 dated January 28, 2014 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), and accordingly, reinstated respondent Bai Haidy D. Mamalinta (Mamalinta) to her former position prior to her dismissal, without loss of seniority rights, and with payment of the corresponding back salaries and all benefits which she would have been entitled to if not for her illegal dismissal.
The Facts
During the May 10, 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections, etitioner Commission on Elections (COMELEC) appointed Mamalinta as Chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) for South Upi, Maguindanao, ogether with Abdullah K. Mato (Mato) and Pablito C. Peñafiel (Peñafiel), Sr. as Vice-Chairman and Member, respectively. While performing their functions as such, the MBOC allegedly committed the following acts: (a) on May 16, 2004, the MBOC proclaimed Datu Israel Sinsuat (Sinsuat) as Mayor, Datu Jabarael Sinsuat6 as Vice-Mayor, and eight (8) members of the Sangguniang Bayan as winning candidates, on the basis of nineteen (19) out of the thirty-five (35) total election returns; (b) on even date, the MBOC caused the transfer of the place for canvassing of votes from Tinaman Elementary School, South Upi, Maguindanao to Cotabato City without prior authority from the COMELEC; and (c) two days later or on May 18, 2004, they proclaimed a new set of winning candidates, headlined by Antonio Gunsi, Jr. (Gunsi) as Mayor and four (4) new members of the Sangguniang Bayan on the basis of thirty (30) out of thirtyfive (35) election returns. Thus, on May 20, 2004, Atty. Clarita Callar, Regional Election Director of the COMELEC Regional Office No. XII, reported the incidents to the COMELEC En Banc, which in turn, directed the COMELEC Law Department to conduct a fact-finding investigation on the matter. Thereafter, the COMELEC Law Department recommended the filing of administrative and criminal cases against the members of the MBOC, and subsequently, Mamalinta was formally charged with Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Gross Inefficiency and Incompetence, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.7
In her defense,8 Mamalinta denied the charges against her, essentially claiming that the MBOC's acts of double proclamation and transferring the place for canvassing were attended by duress in view of the imminent danger to their lives due to the violence and intimidation initiated by Gunsi's supporters.9
The COMELEC En Banc Ruling
In a Resolution10 dated May 24, 2012, the COMELEC En Banc found Mamalinta guilty of Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and accordingly, dismissed her from public service, with imposition of all accessory penalties relative thereto.11
Adopting the findings of its Law Department, the COMELEC En Banc ruled that the MBOC's acts of proclaiming two (2) sets of winning candidates; issuing such proclamations based on an incomplete canvass of votes; and transferring the place for the canvassing of votes are blatant violations of various laws and COMELEC resolutions on the conduct of elections, and thus, sufficient to hold Mamalinta liable for the afore said administrative offenses, thereby justifying her dismissal from service. In this relation, the COMELEC En Banc did not lend credence to Mamalinta's claim of duress and/or threats, opining her failure to substantiate the same.12
Mamalinta moved for reconsideration,13 which was denied in a Resolution14 dated November 27, 2012. Aggrieved, she appealed to the csc.15
The CSC Ruling
In Decision No. 13-096916 dated September 24, 2013, the CSC affirmed the COMELEC En Banc ruling. It held that as MBOC Chairman, Mamalinta clearly committed the acts complained of which violated various election laws and rules and tarnished the image and integrity of her public office, as well as the elections in South Upi, Maguindanao, in general. The
CSC likewise did not lend credence to Mamalinta's claims of violence, opining that they were self-serving, absent any evidence supporting the same.17
Dissatisfied, Mamalinta filed a motion for reconsideration,18 attaching thereto the Minutes19 of the MBOC dated May 14 and 15, 2004 and the Report20 dated May 16, 2004, both prepared by Peñafiel narrating the incidents that transpired during the canvassing in South Upi, Maguindanao.21 Such motion was, however, denied by the CSC through Resolution No. 14- 0013522 dated January 28, 2014. Undaunted, she elevated the matter to the CA via a petition23 for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision24 dated March 11, 2016, the CA reversed and set aside the CSC ruling, and accordingly, reinstated Mamalinta to her former position prior to her dismissal, without loss of seniority rights, and with payment of the corresponding back salaries and all benefits which she would have been entitled to if not for her illegal dismissal.
Contrary to the findings of the COMELEC En Banc and the CSC, the CA found that Mamalinta sufficiently substantiated her claims of duress by presenting various documentary evidence, namely, the Joint-Affidavit25 dated May 18, 2004 she executed with her Vice-Chairman, Mato, and the Minutes26 of the MBOC dated May 14 and 15, 2004 and the Report27 dated May 16, 2004 both prepared by Pefiafiel, all of which recounted the acts of duress and intimidation pressed on them. Further noting that Mamalinta immediately flew to Manila after escaping the hostile incidents they experienced in order to report the same to then-COMELEC Chairman
Benjamin Abalos, the CA concluded that Mamalinta and the rest of the MBOC were indeed forced, intimidated, and coerced into performing the acts constituting the charges against them, and thus, they could not be held administratively liable therefor.28
The COMELEC moved for reconsideration,29 which was, however, denied in a Resolution30 dated August 26, 2016; hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly reversed and set aside the CSC ruling, and consequently, absolved Mamalinta from the administrative charges of Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. To warrant dismissal from the service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. In order to differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in the former.31
On the other hand, and as compared to Simple Neglect of Duty which is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference, Gross Neglect of Duty is characterized by want of even the slightest care, or by conscious indifference to the consequences, or by flagrant and palpable breach of duty.32
Meanwhile, certain acts may be considered as Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of the public office and may or may not be characterized by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules.33 In Encinasv. Agustin, Jr.,34 the Court outlined the following acts that constitute this offense, such as: misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, failure to keep in safety public records and property, making false entries in public documents, and falsification of court orders.35
In order to sustain a finding of administrative culpability under the foregoing offenses, only the quantum of proof of substantial evidence is required, or that amount or relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as a equate to support a conclusion.36
In the case at bar, a judicious review of the records reveals that Mamalinta is being charged of committing the following acts, namely: (a) the double proclamation of Sinsuat and Gunsi as mayor of South Upi; (b) the transfer of the place for canvassing of votes from Tinaman Elementary School, South Upi, Maguindanao to Cotabato City without prior authority from the COMELEC; and (c) the premature proclamation of Sinsuat as the winning candidate on the basis of an incomplete canvass of election returns.
Anent the first two (2) acts complained of, i.e., the double proclamation and the unauthorized transfer of the place for canvassing, the Court agrees with the CA that Mamalinta should not be held administratively liable for the same to warrant her dismissal from the service, as such acts were committed while under duress and intimidation. In People v. Nunez,37 the Court defined duress as follows:
Duress, force, fear or intimidation to be available as a defense, must be present, imminent and impending, and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough.
To be available as a defense, the fear must be well-founded, an immediate and actual danger of death or great bodily harm must be present and the compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. It would be a most dangerous rule if a defendant could shield himself from prosecution for crime by merely setting up a fear from or because of a threat of a third person.38 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Thus, "[d]uress, as a valid defense, should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one's own life. It should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful or remote fear. A threat of future injury is not enough. It must be clearly shown that the compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to escape."39
In the instant case, records reveal that Mamalinta and the rest of the MBOC of South Upi, Maguindanao, were under heavy duress from supporters of mayoralty candidate Gunsi. As stated in Mamalinta's Joint Affidavit40 with Mato, the Vice-Chairman of the MBOC, they were forcibly taken and held hostage by Gunsi' s supporters, and while detained, were forced, intimidated, and coerced into declaring Gunsi as the winning candidate, despite their earlier proclamation that Sinsuat was the true winner of the mayoralty elections. Mamalinta and Mato' s statements in their Joint Affidavit were then corroborated by the Minutes41 of the MBOC dated May 14 and 15, 2004 and the Report42 dated May 16, 2004 both prepared by Pefiafiel, another member of the MBOC, stating inter alia, that while the MBOC was canvassing the votes, Gunsi's supporters kicked open the doors of the room, rushed towards the members of the MBOC, and even attempted to throw chairs to them. Irrefragably, the foregoing incidents show that duress and intimidation were clearly exercised against Mamalinta and the rest of the MBOC, and thus, the latter succumbed to the same by performing the aforesaid acts, i.e., the double proclamation and the unauthorized transfer of the place for canvassing, albeit against their will.
Furthermore, the CA aptly pointed out that as soon as Mamalinta and the MBOC escaped from their dire situation, she immediately flew to Manila to report the incidents to the COMELEC, and such fact was not seriously disputed by the latter.43 Thus, there is more reason to believe that Mamalinta and the MBOC did not willingly commit the aforementioned acts.
To clarify, the CA did not err in considering Mamalinta and Mato's Joint Affidavit - as well as the Minutes of the MBOC dated May 14 and 15, 2004 and the Report dated May 16, 2004 both prepared by Pefiafiel - although they were not formally offered as evidence during the investigation before the COMELEC. As a rule, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings. Hence, in proper cases such as this, the procedural rules may be relaxed for the furtherance of just objectives.44 Thus, the CA did not err in taking these documents in consideration.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court notes that the CA failed to determine Mamalinta's administrative liability on the third act she was accused of committing, i.e., the premature proclamation of Sinsuat as the winning candidate on the basis of an incomplete canvass of election returns. In Nasser lmmam v. COMELEC,45 the Court ruled that a complete canvass of votes is necessary in order to reflect the true desire of the electorate, and that a proclamation of winning candidates on the basis of incomplete canvass is illegal and of no effect, viz.:
Jurisprudence provides that all votes cast in an election must be considered, otherwise voters shall be disenfranchised.1âwphi1 A canvass cannot be reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless and until all returns are considered and none is omitted. In this case, fourteen (14) precincts were omitted in the canvassing.
x x x x
An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation. A canvass cannot be reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered and none is omitted. This is true when the election returns missing or not counted will affect the results of the election.
We note that the votes of petitioner totaled one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one (1,961) while private respondent garnered a total of one thousand nine hundred thirty (1,930) votes. The difference was only thirty-one (31) votes. There were fourteen (14) precincts unaccounted for whose total number of registered voters are two thousand three hundred and forty-eight (2,348). Surely, these votes will affect the result of the election. Consequently, the non-inclusion of the 14 precincts in the counting disenfranchised the voters.46 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
In the case at bar, the COMELEC En Banc correctly pointed out that the uncanvassed election returns can still drastically affect the outcome of the elections, since "at the time of Sinsuat's proclamation, he garnered only [1,230] votes, with the exclusion of the [12] election returns and [4] election returns that have yet to be canvassed. These [4] election returns amount to [3,049] votes, or equivalent to 42.91% of the total registered voters of South Upi, Maguindanao."47 Notably, Mamalinta's defense of duress - which was upheld in her other two (2) acts of double proclamation and unauthorized transfer of the place for canvassing - is untenable in this instance as there was no showing that the MBOC was intimidated or coerced into proclaiming Sinsuat as the winning candidate for the position of Mayor of South Upi, Maguindanao. The allegations of Mamalinta that force and threats were exerted on her to make said premature proclamation are self-serving and not supported by any other evidence, hence, cannot be relied upon.48 Therefore, Mamalinta's afore-described act of premature proclamation may still be considered as Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service, and thus, she should be held administratively liable therefor.
In sum, while Mamalinta may be absolved from administrative liability for her acts of double proclamation and unauthorized transfer of the place for canvassing as such acts were done under duress, she is nevertheless administratively liable for her premature proclamation of Sinsuat as the winning candidate on the basis of an incomplete canvass of votes.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 11, 2016 and the Resolution dated August 26, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 134368 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Bai Haidy D. Mamalinta is hereby found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Accordingly, her civil service eligibility is CANCELLED, and her retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits, are hereby FORFEITED. Further, she is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality, including any government-owned and controlled corporation or government financial institution.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice |
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice |
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA*
Associate Justice |
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA
Associate Justice |
SAMUEL R. MARTIRES
Associate Justice |
NOEL G. TIJAM
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
* No part.
1 Rollo, pp. 12-40.
2 Id. at 51-73. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon with Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Jhosep Y. Lopez concurring.
3 Id. at 75-76.
4 Id. at 90-101. Signed by Chairman Francisco T. Duque III and Commissioners Nieves L. Osorio and Robert S. Martinez.
5 Id. at 110-114.
6 "Jaberael" (See CA rollo, p. 46) and "Jabarel" (See CA rollo, p. 9) in some parts of the records.
7 Rollo, pp. 52-53. See also pp. 80-82.
8 See Mamalinta's Answer dated April 25, 2007; CA rollo, pp. 67-74.
9 Rollo, p. 82. See also CA rollo, pp. 70-71.
10 Id. at 79-89. Signed by Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. and Commissioners Rene V. Sarmiento, Lucenito N. Tagle, Armando C. Velasco, Elias R. Yusoph, and Christian Robert S. Lim.
11 Id. at 88-89.
12 Id. at 83-87.
13 Dated June 28, 2012; CA rollo, pp. 90-100.
14 Rollo, pp. 104-107. Penned by Commisioner Armando C. Velasco with Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. and Commissioners Rene V. Sarmiento, Lucenito N. Tagle, Elias R. Yusoph, Christian Robert S. Lim, and Ma. Gracia Cielo M. Padaca concurring.
15 See Notice of Appeal (with Appeal Memorandum) dated January 30, 2013; CA rollo, pp. 110-147.
16 Rollo, pp. 90-101.
17 Id. at 97-100.
18 Dated October 31, 2013; CA rollo, pp. 178-186.
19 CA rollo, pp. 187-197.
20 Id. at 198.
21 See rollo, p. 60.
22 Id.at ll0-114.
23 Dated March 7, 2014; CA rollo, pp. 3-21.
24 Rollo, pp. 51-73.
25 CA rollo, pp. 57-58.
26 Id. at 187-197.
27 Id. at 198.
28 Rollo, pp. 63-72.
29 Dated April 4, 2016; CA rollo, pp. 300-314.
30 Rollo, pp. 75-76.
31 Office of the Court Administrator v. Viesca, A.M. No. P-12-3092, April 14, 2015, 755 SCRA 385, 396, citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Amor,745 Phil. 1, 8 (2014).
32 Id. at 395, citing CA v. Manabat, Jr.,676 Phil. 157, 164 (2011).
33 See Office of the Ombudsman v. Castro, G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015, 757 SCRA 73, 86-88, citations omitted.
34 709 Phil. 236 (2013).
35 Id. at 263-264, citing Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, 415 Phil. 713, 720-721 (2001).
36 See Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, 654 Phil. 602, 607 (2011), citing Velasco v. Angeles, 557 Phil. 1, 20 (2007).
37 341 Phil. 817 (1997).
38 Id. at 828, citing People v. Villanueva, 104 Phil. 450, 464 (1958).
39 People v. Palencia, 162 Phil. 695, 711 (1976), citations omitted.
40 CA rollo, pp. 57-58.
41 Id. at 187-197.
42 Id. at 198.
43 See rollo, pp. 69-71.
44 Gaoiran v. Alcala, 486 Phil. 657, 669 (2004), citing Montemayor v. Bundalian, 453 Phil. 158, 166 (2003).
45 379 Phil. 953 (2000).
46 Id. at 962-964, citations omitted.
47 Rollo, p. 85.
48 See Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No. 8560, September 6, 2016, citing People v. Mangune, 698 Phil. 759, 771 (2012).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
