Substantial

Wrongful acts or omissions of public officers like grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service give rise to threefold liabilities: civil, criminal and administrative, with the action for each proceeding independently of the other, and quantum of evidence required in each case, different. In administrative cases, substantial evidence is enough. This is illustrated in this case of Torres (not his true name).

Torres was a Special Police Lieutenant assigned as Deputy Station Commander of the Police force within the Philippine Economic Zone (PEZA) located in Mactan (MEZ). Upon assuming his post, he immediately summoned Caloy, the president of the drivers association and demanded P1,000 allegedly for payment of parking fees that were not covered by official receipts. Caloy initially agreed to such arrangement to facilitate the issuance of their ID signed by Torres.

Later on however whenever the association failed to give said “fees”, Torres would resort to harassment and threats to the lives of the members of the association. In another incident he even handed a letter to Waldo, one of the drivers, demanding a lechon from the association for his birthday celebration. Fed up, the association led by Caloy discontinued payment of the weekly tong and did not provide the roasted pig. This enraged Torres, so upon seeing Waldo, he pushed him and threatened him with bodily harm.

Since Torres had already become physical in his harassments/threats to their lives, Caloy, as president of the drivers’ association had to come out in the open by filing charges against him before the PEZA attaching thereto, the joint affidavits of four drivers including himself and Waldo relating Torres’ nefarious activities. Told to explain in writing by the Administrator, Torres categorically denied the charges and said that he was just strictly enforcing the PEZA and LTO rules and regulations on cleanliness and traffic which caught the ire of the drivers who constantly violated the said rules.

But during the hearing, direct, positive and categorical testimonies of witnesses established that Torres demanded and personally received weekly “tong” of P1,000 and ordered Waldo to produce a lechon for his birthday, and pushed and threatened them with bodily harm when they failed to deliver. Also presented were the torn IDs of Waldo and another driver to prove the harassments and threats made by Torres.

Considered in the light of Torres’ bare denials, the PEZA found him guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and meted the penalty of dismissal as prescribed by law. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed Torres dismissal. Were the CSC and PEZA correct?

Yes. Torres’ gross misconduct coupled with conduct prejudicial to public interest was proven by the quantum of evidence required in administrative cases — substantial evidence. 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 finality because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these quasi-judicial tribunals handling specific matters falling under their jurisdiction. 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 evidence received.

In this case the wrongful acts committed by Torres were established through direct, positive and categorical testimonies of witnesses. Said testimonies cannot be easily overthrown by Torres’ mere denial. It is a basic rule in evidence that a negative testimony cannot prevail over a positive one.

Further, there was no evidence to prove the allegation as to the ill-motive of the drivers in filing the charges against Torres. Said witnesses would not testify unless there is some truth in their testimony (Torredes vs. Villamor, G.R. 151110, September 11, 2008)

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]