Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    GSIS V Villaviza Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lou
    The GSIS filed formal charges against respondents for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges alleged that respondents marched to the office of the Investigation Unit in a mass demonstration in support of other employees. Respondents did not file an answer to the formal charges. The Court ruled that (1) the failure to file an answer only results in a waiver of the right to file an answer, not an admission of the charges, and (2) the GSIS still bears the burden of proving the charges with clear and convincing evidence, regardless of whether an answer was filed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    GSIS V Villaviza Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lou
    1K views2 pages
    The GSIS filed formal charges against respondents for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges alleged that respondents marched to the office of the Investigation Unit in a mass demonstration in support of other employees. Respondents did not file an answer to the formal charges. The Court ruled that (1) the failure to file an answer only results in a waiver of the right to file an answer, not an admission of the charges, and (2) the GSIS still bears the burden of proving the charges with clear and convincing evidence, regardless of whether an answer was filed.

    Original Title

    GSIS v Villaviza Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The GSIS filed formal charges against respondents for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges alleged that respondents marched to the office of the Investigation Unit in a mass demonstration in support of other employees. Respondents did not file an answer to the formal charges. The Court ruled that (1) the failure to file an answer only results in a waiver of the right to file an answer, not an admission of the charges, and (2) the GSIS still bears the burden of proving the charges with clear and convincing evidence, regardless of whether an answer was filed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    GSIS V Villaviza Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lou
    The GSIS filed formal charges against respondents for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges alleged that respondents marched to the office of the Investigation Unit in a mass demonstration in support of other employees. Respondents did not file an answer to the formal charges. The Court ruled that (1) the failure to file an answer only results in a waiver of the right to file an answer, not an admission of the charges, and (2) the GSIS still bears the burden of proving the charges with clear and convincing evidence, regardless of whether an answer was filed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GSIS v. Villaviza, G.R. No.

    180291, July 27, 2010


    Rule 8, Sec. 11 and Rule 9, Sec. 1
    FACTS:
    PGM Garcia, as President and General Manager of the GSIS, filed separate formal charges
    against respondents and eventually found them guilty for Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct
    Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and meting out the penalty of one (1) year
    suspension plus the accessory penalties appurtenant thereto. The charges contained that
    respondent, wearing red shirt together with some employees, marched to or appeared
    simultaneously at or just outside the office of the Investigation Unit in a mass
    demonstration/rally of protest and support for Messrs. Mario Molina and Albert Velasco, the
    latter having surreptitiously entered the GSIS premises.

    On appeal, CSC found that the acts of respondents in going to the GSIS-IU office wearing red
    shirts to witness a public hearing do not amount to a concerted activity or mass action proscribed
    above. CSC added that their actuations can be deemed an exercise of their constitutional right to
    freedom of expression. The CA found no cogent reason to deviate therefrom.

    ISSUE:
    WHETHER AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MAY APPLY SUPPLETORILY THE
    PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT ON THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DENY
    THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER,
    WHERE THE RESPONDENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS DID NOT
    FILE ANY RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO THE FORMAL CHARGES AGAINST
    THEM.

    RULING:
    Petitioners primarily question the probative value accorded to respondents' letters of explanation
    in response to the memorandum of the GSIS-IU Manager.  The respondents never filed their
    answers to the formal charges. The petitioners argue that there being no answers, the allegations
    in the formal charges that they filed should have been deemed admitted pursuant to Section 11,
    Rule 8 of the Rules of Court which provides:

    SECTION 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted.-- Material averment in the
    complaint, other than those as to the amount of liquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted
    when not specifically denied.  Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are
    deemed admitted if not denied specifically and under oath.

    According to the petitioners, this rule is applicable to the case at bench pursuant to Rule 1,
    Section 4 of the Rules of Court which reads:
    SECTION 4.  In what cases not applicable. - These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land
    registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein
    provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
    convenient. (underscoring supplied)

    The Court does not subscribe to the argument of the petitioners. Petitioners' own rules, Rule XI,
    Section 4 of the GSIS' Amended Policy and Procedural Guidelines No. 178-04, specifically
    provides:

    If the respondent fails to file his Answer within five (5) working days from receipt of the Formal
    Charge for the supporting evidence, when requested, he shall be considered to have waived his
    right to file an answer and the PGM or the Board of Trustees, in proper cases, shall render
    judgment, as may be warranted by the facts and evidence submitted by the prosecution.

    A perusal of said section readily discloses that 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.

    Even granting that Rule 8, Section 11 of the Rules of Court finds application in this case,
    petitioners 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.[11]  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.  We must not forget that 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.[12]

    You might also like