Scribd
Upload
478 views2 pages

Remolona V CSC

Petitioner Estelito Remolona, a postmaster, appealed his dismissal from service for dishonesty along with his wife. The Civil Service Commission found them liable for falsifying his wife's civil service eligibility documents. The Supreme Court upheld their dismissal, ruling that (1) dishonest acts, even if not related to one's duties, can be grounds for dismissal from government service, and (2) the right to counsel does not apply to administrative investigations like this one. The Court of Appeals has discretion to review the original records of quasi-judicial agencies like the Civil Service Commission.

Uploaded by

JM Pabustan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
478 views2 pages

Remolona V CSC

Petitioner Estelito Remolona, a postmaster, appealed his dismissal from service for dishonesty along with his wife. The Civil Service Commission found them liable for falsifying his wife's civil service eligibility documents. The Supreme Court upheld their dismissal, ruling that (1) dishonest acts, even if not related to one's duties, can be grounds for dismissal from government service, and (2) the right to counsel does not apply to administrative investigations like this one. The Court of Appeals has discretion to review the original records of quasi-judicial agencies like the Civil Service Commission.

Uploaded by

JM Pabustan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

[2] [Remolona v.

CSC]
G.R. No. 137473. | August 2, 2001.  | Judicial Review of Administrative Action | Puno | Pabustan

Petitioner: Estelito V. Remolona (Postmaster at the Postal Office Service in Infanta, Quezon)


Respondents: CSC, CA

Case Doctrine:
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 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.

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.

FACTS:
Petitioner’s wife a grade school teacher. A District Supervisor inquired as to his wife’s civil service rating
of 81.25%. with the CSC.

Upon investigation of Regional Director Amilhasan it was found that Mrs Remolona’s name did not appear
in the passing and failing examinees and that the exam no. 061285 as indicated in her report of rating
belonged to a certain Marlou Madelo who got a rating of 65%.

In the “preliminary investigation” Petitioner alleges that he met Atty. Salupadin and the latter said that he
will help Mrs. Remolona acquire civil service eligibility for P 3,000.00. His wife is absolved because of her
lack of knowledge and participation.

CSC Regional Director found both Remolonas liable and dismissed them from service for dishonesty;
ruling adopted by CSC;

ISSUE/S: 1. Whether a civil service employee can be dismissed for an offense which is is not
connected with the performance of his official duty. YES!

2. Whether there was a violation of his right to due process during the preliminary investigation
because he was not assisted by counsel. NO!

HELD:

1. YES. 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

2. NO. 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. 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 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.

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.

You might also like