View full case

DIOSCORO F. BACSIN v. EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN

FACTS:

The petitioner, a teacher, was charged with misconduct for improperly touching one of his students. The formal charge did not specifically mention the offense of sexual harassment, but it was implied based on the facts alleged. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) found the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal from service. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the CSC's ruling.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner could be found guilty of acts of sexual harassment, which was different from the offense of misconduct alleged in the formal charge.

  2. Whether the penalty of dismissal imposed by the CSC is in accordance with the applicable rules.

  3. Whether the offense of misconduct includes the offense of grave misconduct.

RULING:

  1. The Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the CA's decision.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In administrative cases, the charge need not be drafted with the precision of a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that the respondent is apprised of the substance of the charge against him/her.

  • The offense of sexual harassment need not be explicitly stated and can be discerned from the acts of the offender. In this case, the petitioner's act of improperly touching his student constituted sexual harassment.

  • Factual findings of administrative agencies, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding upon the Court.

  • Grave misconduct requires elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. The petitioner's act of fondling a student falls under the category of grave misconduct.

  • The penalty of dismissal for grave misconduct is in accordance with the rules.

  • Due process in administrative proceedings requires only an opportunity to be heard or to explain one's side. In this case, the petitioner was properly informed of the charge and had a chance to refute it.

  • A teacher who sexually harasses a student should not be allowed to practice the profession.

These principles were applied in the case:

  • The charge need not be drafted with precision in administrative cases.

  • Sexual harassment can be inferred from the acts of the offender.

  • Factual findings of administrative agencies are binding if supported by substantial evidence.

  • Grave misconduct requires elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.

  • Dismissal is an appropriate penalty for grave misconduct.

  • Due process in administrative proceedings requires only an opportunity to be heard.

  • Teachers who sexually harass students should be disqualified from practicing the profession.