View full case

IRENE K. NACU v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

FACTS:

Irene K. Nacu, an employee at the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), was accused of charging overtime fees from Edison (Bataan) Cogeneration Corporation (EBCC) despite a memorandum prohibiting such fees. PEZA conducted a preliminary investigation and interviewed a document processor at EBCC who claimed that the overtime fees went to Nacu's group. PEZA requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to verify Nacu's signatures on the Statements of Overtime Services (SOS) and sent the documents to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory (PNP Crime Lab) for examination. The PNP Crime Lab found significant divergences and similarities in the signatures. Based on this, PEZA filed a formal charge against Nacu for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Nacu denied the allegations, claiming that the signatures were not hers and that she had no knowledge of the memorandum.

During the hearing, various witnesses were presented by PEZA to support their case, including a document examiner, a zone administrator, and other PEZA officials. On February 8, 2005, the PEZA Central Board of Inquiry, Investigation, and Discipline (CBIID) found Nacu guilty and recommended her dismissal from service. Nacu filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, leading her to appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC affirmed the CBIID's decision, and Nacu filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Nacu then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), but she died while the case was pending resolution. Her heirs were substituted as petitioners. The CA affirmed the CSC's decision, rejecting Nacu's claims and objections. The CA emphasized that Nacu, as a PEZA employee, had the obligation to stay informed about the office's operations and developments pertaining to her position. The CA also disregarded Nacu's criticisms of certain evidence, such as the PNP Crime Lab's findings, stating that administrative cases are not strictly governed by technical rules of procedure and evidence. The CA found that when considered together, the memorandum order, the PNP's findings, and the witnesses' testimonies were sufficient evidence against Nacu.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the finding that Nacu is guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is supported by substantial evidence.

  2. Whether the PNP Crime Lab's report should be given credence.

  3. Whether or not the signatures appearing on the documents were properly identified as the defendant's

  4. Whether or not the defendant's right against self-incrimination was violated when she was made to give samples of her signature

  5. Whether or not the defendant was deprived of due process when she was not given the opportunity to cross-examine a witness

  6. Whether or not there were inconsistencies in the witness's statement

  7. Whether or not the defendant was aware of the existence of the memorandum order

  8. Whether the petitioner's knowledge of the existence of a rule prohibiting a certain act would prevent him from doing the prohibited act.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition. Substantial evidence, the quantum of evidence required in administrative proceedings, was present to support the conclusion that Nacu was guilty of the acts complained of. The testimonies of the witnesses, the statements made by Ligan during the preliminary investigation, and the findings of the PNP Crime Lab on the examination of the signatures on the SOS, amounted to substantial evidence. The PNP Crime Lab's findings were not discredited by the NBI's opinion on the sufficiency of the samples. Nacu failed to provide strong evidence to contradict the complainant's evidence of forgery.

  2. The Court of Appeals (CA) relied not only on the PNP Crime Lab report but also on the identification of the signatures by a co-employee who holds the same position as the defendant. The CA found the signatures on the documents to be the defendant's.

  3. The defendant's right against self-incrimination was not violated as she did not invoke her right at the appropriate time and is therefore deemed to have waived it.

  4. Due process in administrative proceedings does not require strict application of technical rules of procedure and evidence. The absence of cross-examination does not automatically mean a violation of due process as long as the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side.

  5. There were no inconsistencies in the witness's statement as the defendant's assumption led to the baseless conclusion that the documents referred to in the formal charge were the same ones mentioned by the witness.

  6. The defendant cannot feign ignorance of the existence of the memorandum order as it was common knowledge among employees of the agency she worked for. Publication is not required for internal regulations to take effect.

  7. The contention of the petitioners is rejected as false and puerile. Knowledge of the existence of a rule does not absolutely prevent one from doing the prohibited act. The finding that the petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is upheld. The dismissal from the service and its accessory penalties are justified.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Proceedings in administrative cases are not strictly governed by technical rules of procedure and evidence, as they are required to be disposed of summarily.

  • Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

  • The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery to prove it by clear and convincing evidence.

  • Anyone who is familiar with a person's writing may testify on the genuineness of a signature.

  • The right against self-incrimination must be claimed at the appropriate time or it may be deemed waived.

  • Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings.

  • Due process in administrative proceedings is satisfied when the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy.

  • A witness's statement made without an oath and without cross-examination may be considered in administrative proceedings.

  • Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature do not require publication to take effect.

  • Administrative findings supported by substantial evidence are accorded respect and finality. The reviewing court should not weigh conflicting evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of evidence.

  • Length of service or the fact that it is the offender's first offense cannot mitigate the violation if the gravity of the offense and its impact on the integrity of the institution are significant.