FACTS:

The case involves two separate complaints filed against Dr. Allyson Belagan, Superintendent of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) in Baguio City. Magdalena Gapuz, the founder/directress of the "Mother and Child Learning Center," accused Belagan of sexual indignities and harassment. Ligaya Annawi, a public school teacher, also accused Belagan of sexual harassment and various malfeasances.

In Magdalena's complaint, she alleged that during an inspection of her school premises, Belagan suddenly embraced her and kissed her cheek. She confronted him about his behavior, but he just sheepishly smiled. Later on, she asked about the status of her application, but Belagan asked her to go on a date instead. She declined and reported the matter to DECS Assistant Superintendent Peter Ngabit. Magdalena read from a newspaper about other female DECS employees accusing a high-ranking official of sexual harassment, which she later found out to be Belagan. She then wrote a letter-complaint to former DECS Secretary Ricardo Gloria.

On the other hand, Ligaya Annawi claimed that Belagan touched her breasts, kissed her cheek, touched her groins, embraced her from behind, and pressed his organ against the lower part of her back on separate occasions. Ligaya also accused Belagan of delaying the payment of teachers' salaries, failing to release the pay differentials of substitute teachers, refusing to release the teachers' uniforms and allowances, and failing to constitute the Selection and Promotion Board.

Both complaints were jointly investigated by the DECS. Belagan denied the allegations of sexual harassment but presented evidence to disprove Ligaya's claims of dereliction of duty. On January 9, 1995, the DECS Secretary rendered a Joint Decision finding Belagan guilty of four counts of sexual indignities or harassments against Ligaya and two counts of sexual advances or indignities against Magdalena. He was ordered dismissed from the service.

In this case, Magdalena Gapuz filed a complaint against respondent, a public school superintendent, for making lecherous advances towards her. She claimed that respondent tried to kiss her after a meeting of a bayanihan group near a waiting shed. Respondent argued that Magdalena's character, integrity, and credibility were questionable due to the numerous cases filed against her. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) denied respondent's motion for reconsideration, stating that the character of a woman who is a victim of sexual assault is of minor significance in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC's decision, dismissing Magdalena's complaint. The Appellate Court found Magdalena to be an unreliable witness, noting her aggressive nature and propensity for trouble. It considered respondent's "unblemished" 37-year service record and absolved him from the charges. Unsatisfied, the CSC filed a petition with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in not giving credence to Magdalena's testimony.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Magdalena Gapuz is a credible witness.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not giving credence to Magdalena Gapuz's testimony.

3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling on the penalty to be imposed on the respondent.

4. Whether the character or reputation of a complaining witness in a sexual charge is a proper subject of inquiry.

5. Whether the derogatory record of the complaining witness in this case is sufficient to discredit her credibility.

6. Whether respondent committed grave misconduct in unlawfully using his position to procure a benefit for himself in demanding a "date" from Magdalena in exchange for the issuance of a permit.

7. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the findings of the DECS and the CSC.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner.

2. The Court of Appeals is correct in holding that the character or reputation of a complaining witness in a sexual charge is a proper subject of inquiry.

3. The derogatory record of the complaining witness is not sufficient to discredit her credibility. The majority of the cases and complaints filed against her were no longer reliable proofs of her character or reputation. Evidence of one's character or reputation must be confined to a time not too remote from the time in question. Furthermore, the respondent failed to prove that the complaining witness was convicted in any of the criminal cases specified.

4. Yes, respondent committed grave misconduct. Grave misconduct requires the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. In this case, respondent not only stole a kiss from Magdalena but also demanded a "date" as an unlawful consideration for the issuance of a permit. This act constitutes grave misconduct as it involves the unlawful use of respondent's position to procure a benefit for himself, contrary to his duty and the rights of others.

5. Yes, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the findings of the DECS and the CSC without sufficient basis. The DECS and the CSC, as well as Magdalena and another witness, presented positive testimonies and evidence in support of Magdalena's allegations. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight of their testimonies are best determined by the investigating officials who were able to hear and observe their deportment and manner of testifying. Therefore, the Court of Appeals should not have disregarded the findings of the DECS and the CSC.

PRINCIPLES:

• Factual findings of the Court of Appeals, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding, and are not reviewable by the Supreme Court. However, an exception to this rule is when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court or a quasi-judicial body.

• Character evidence is generally regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, except in criminal cases where the good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged. This rule does not apply to administrative offenses.

• The credibility of a witness can be attacked by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad. However, evidence of particular wrongful acts is generally not admissible for impeachment purposes.

• The character or reputation of a complaining witness in a sexual charge is a proper subject of inquiry.

• Evidence of one's character or reputation must be confined to a time not too remote from the time in question.

• It is unfair to presume that a person who has wandered from the path of moral righteousness can never retrace their steps again.

• A witness may not be impeached or discredited by evidence of particular acts of misconduct.

• The witness's credibility can be supported by the substantial evidence presented, such as the witness's testimony being detailed, candid, and spontaneous.

• Misconduct, whether grave or simple, relates to the intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior by a government official. Misconduct should be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer to constitute an administrative offense.

• Grave misconduct requires the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. Corruption is present when an official unlawfully and wrongfully uses his position or character to procure a benefit for himself or another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.

• In determining the penalties to be imposed, mitigating and aggravating circumstances may be considered.

• Mitigating, aggravating, and alternative circumstances should be considered in determining the penalties to be imposed in administrative cases.

• Length of service is a circumstance that can be appreciated in determining the appropriate penalty.

• Recognizing and remunerating the lengthy service of public officers and employees is not negated, even when wrongdoings are not condoned.