I. This refers to two (2) consolidated administrative complaints filed by Messrs. Dan Garganera, et al. and Manuel J. Posecion, et al. against Dr. Venancio G. Garagan, President, West Visayas State University (WVSU), Iloilo City, for alleged dishonesty, mismanagement, harassment of faculty members, conduct unbecoming a university President, oppression, incompetence, and insubordination.

II. A. The complaint of Mr. Dan Garganera, et al.

In a letter-petition, with enclosures, dated September 4, 1989, Mr. Dan Anthony Garganera, et al., requested that the respondent be investigated, and thereafter be preventively suspended and removed from office. The accompanying œPetition  listed thirty-seven (37) specifications, as follows:

œ1.

Illegal cutting and pruning of trees inside the campus without permit from the DENR; felled trees were unaccounted for; the lumber allegedly found in his hometown.

œ2.

Gift solicitation from the suppliers of the University. (Annex 1 and 2) (sic)

œ3.

Falsification of documents, listing himself as the 33rd supplier of the University in the list of 32 suppliers to be paid. (Annex 3)

œ4.

Juggling of funds, in which furnitures for the Office of Extension bought from JJT Woodcraft was paid from the money of the Office of Research. (Annex 4)

œ5.

Mishandling of funds, in which the budget for two casuals in the Graduate Studies amounted to ?1,767,256.54.

œ6.

Extortion of 25% in cash or in kind of the produce of the residents in the WVSU-CAF Lambunao campus and without official receipt.

œ7.

Receiving cheques from our suppliers with his name in it instead of the University.

œ8.

Subtraction from the amount collected and cash prize of WVSU ™s bet in the Ms. RANCE ™89 pageant.

œ9.

Alleged 10 cases of softdrinks from Coca Cola Bottlers Co. delivered to his hometown Guimbal and Oton every month.

œ10.

Rendition of overtime pay to personnel not requiring it and failure to submit his clearance and certification of leave credits for his first salary. (Annex 5)

œ11.

Unaccounted amount of P10,000 used by him allegedly for medical books last February 1988 in which the books have not been delivered until now. (Annex 6)

œ12.

An amount of P71,200 not entered in the Books of Accounts of the University of Southern Mindanao, alterations in the quotation and absence of receipts in major equipment purchases. (Annex 7)

œ13.

Implicated in the illegal sale of lumber confiscated by DENR.

œ14.

Delay in the release of our teacher ™s summer honoraria, given only by July 11 and without approval of DBM. (Annex 8)

œ15.

Delay in the release of NCC 33 salary differentials of 1987 and 1988. (Annex 8)

œ16.

Hiring of teachers paid on daily basis, although with their consent, instead of monthly.

œ17.

Unfair promotion of personnel, wherein new ones were promoted ahead of the older ones; and ineligibles while neglecting those with eligibility and experience.

œ18.

Engineers and architects were appointed as instructors and paid monthly instead of as contractual. (Annex 9)

œ19.

A clerk in his office appointed as an Instructor V.

œ20

Salaries of laborers at Lambunao campus since June are unpaid until now.

œ21.

Slow and inadequate action on the complaints of students until mass actions were held. (Annex 10)

œ22.

Passing a memorandum altering the Teacher Education Grant without resolution by the Board of Regents and deliberations by the Academic Council. (Annex 11)

œ23.

Sudden transfer of CAF students to Lambunao breaching Task Force Integration guidelines specifying it to 1991.

œ24.

Unfair selection of the Dean for the College of Medicine and violating the agreement with them last year.

œ25.

Unfair selection of the Director of Instruction wherein the guidelines were altered without the knowledge of the Academic Council.(Annex 12)

œ26.

Alleged manipulations in the screening for the Vice-President in Administration with two complaints pending now. (Annex 13)

œ27.

Coercion of a faculty member to execute an affidavit against another. (Annex 14 and 15) (sic)

œ28.

Harassing faculty members; raising charges against three of them without sufficient evidence or clarifying matters first.

œ29.

Threats to subordinates and using security guards in work not specified in their job.

œ30.

Disregarding COA memos to enlarge the name of the University in the presidential car and place an insignia in it.

œ31.

Utilizing University services for personal interests such as the HE for his wife ™s clothes and a secretary to cook for him and his family.

œ32.

Reverting non-masteral degree faculty members to temporary status despite CSC permanence, eligibility and length of experience. (Annex 16)

œ33.

Threatening to close the Laboratory School if the PTA disagree with having it turned over to a foundation.

œ34.

Procrastinating deliberations on the autonomy of the College of Medicine and meddling in[its]affairs.

œ35.

His conduct unbecoming of a President by using belligerent language and uncouth words and an arrogant attitude.

œ36.

Dishonesty and mismanagement.

œ37.

Incompetence and inefficiency in solving complaints and discharging his duties as President. 

III. B. The complaint of Dr. Manuel Posecion, et al.

A faculty member of the WVSU, complainant Dr. Manuel Posecion and others filed an amended complaint dated March 17, 1988 against respondent for:

1. OPPRESSION
   
   
   1. Respondent allegedly converted the University hospital into a lucrative lending, financing and quasi-banking institution by disallowing the discharge of patients in the WVSU Hospital without the patients paying in full their accounts although credits may be granted on a case-to-case basis subject to appreciable collateral/deposit.
      
      
   2. Respondent allegedly issued a series of memoranda threatening the (a) expulsion of two (2) medical and other junior interns, (b) administrative sanctions to protesting faculty and students and (c) non-graduation and the taking of comprehensive examination for medical interns.
   
   
2. INCOMPETENCE
   
   
   1. While complainants allege that respondent is vested with the discretion to appoint the Director of the University Hospital, his right is not absolute, considering the protest thereon of the faculty, staff and students of the College of Medicine. The complainants suggest that the respondent should have given due process to the protest.
      
      
   2. It is further averred that through the respondent ™s sheer callousness to the needs and demands of the faculty, students and staff, the conflict between them has intensified which could have been averted.
      
      
   3. On this charge, it is finally alleged that due to his limited social perspective, respondent allegedly had the impression that the University Hospital was established purely for business and profit, thereby contradicting in the process its primary purpose, which is to train and produce competent doctors and nurses to serve the public.
   
   
3. DISHONESTY INSUBORDINATION AND INCOMPETENCE
   
   
   1. Respondent reportedly failed to appoint any of the three nominees of the medical faculty to the positions of the Dean of the College of Medicine and Director of the University Hospital, but instead designated one Dr. Samuel Fajutrao as Director, an act which was vehemently opposed by the faculty, staff and students. The implementation of the compromise arrived at to have a three-man committee administer the University Hospital was allegedly deliberately delayed by the respondent to the extent of making it appear that one of the members of the committee, Dr. Myrna Abello, was in Antique.
      
      
   2. The complainants allege that the respondent made it appear that a certain Rosemarie Piamonte was harassed on her way to the University Hospital, a claim denied by Piamonte.
      
      
   3. The respondent appointed Engineer Jose Mariano Genciana and Architect Alfredo Gaticales, Jr. as laboratory school instructors without teaching loads to circumvent the lack of plantilla positions of Architect and Engineer.
      
      
   4. Complainants aver that respondent had assessed and charged students of the College of Nursing of Related Learning Experience (RLE) fees without prior approval of the WVSU BOR.
      
      
   5. Respondent allegedly did not comply with the agreement for the dropping of all charges.
      
      
   6. Respondent, moreover, defied the directive of the DECS Secretary for him to file his leave of absence and continued to exercise his functions as WVSU President by issuing a memorandum dated March 10, 1988, advising the college cashier not to pay the salaries of the faculty in the College of Medicine.
      
      
   7. Sometime in January, 1988, respondent, in disregard of auditing procedures, allegedly ordered the release of cash incentives to all employees without approval of the BOR, subject to refund, should the Department of Budget and Management not approve the same.
      
      
   8. Dr. Ernesto Rivera was allegedly appointed by respondent as Surgery Consultant, when he is not a member of the University consultative staff, WVSU Hospital, and which appointment was made without consultation with the WVSU Hospital Department of Surgery. The complainants also aver that incompetence was shown by respondent ™s promise to the resident physicians of their promotion to professorships, when such promotions could only be promotions as consultants. Respondent is being charged, moreover, of not observing the Civil Service rules and regulations in appointing to sensitive positions unqualified applicants.
   
   
4. CONDUCT UNBECOMING A PRESIDENT OF THE WVSU

Respondent allegedly uttered scurrilous and libelous language in formal gatherings of professionals, students and faculty members.

On September 22, 1989, my Office, after evaluating and studying the above-administrative charges, found that a prima facie case exists against respondent. Consequently, he was directed to answer the charges and was preventively suspended for ninety (90) days pending investigation of the same. On even date, my office directed the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports to investigate the administrative charges against respondent or for her to create a committee to undertake the investigation, submitting thereafter to me her or the committee ™s findings and recommendation.

Meanwhile, as required, respondent submitted his formal Answers to the two (2) consolidated complaints of Messrs. Garganera and Posecion, et. al.

IV. A. Respondent ™s Answer to the complaint of Mr. Dan Garganera, et. al. The Answer of the respondent to this complaint contained the following:

1. The charge on the cutting and selling of lumber has been investigated and resolved by the DENR which exonerated respondent.
   
   
2. The alleged solicited gifts were actually donations to the University and not to him (respondent).
   
   
3. Respondent never included his name as a supplier in the schedule of accounts payable. His claim which appears therein refers to his honoraria as Hospital Administrator, which was prepared by the Supply Officer and the University Accountant.
   
   
4. The alleged juggling of funds stemmed from an error in the designation of the source of funding.
   
   
5. The amount of ?1,767,256.54 was intended for 115, not merely 2, casuals employed in the university; this amount covered a specific period.
   
   
6. The proceeds of the alleged extortion were turned over to the University Cashier.
   
   
7. The charge of receiving checks in the respondent ™s name from University suppliers was denied; assuming the truth thereof, however, the respondent did not misappropriate the amounts represented by the checks.
   
   
8. On the allegation that he subtracted from the amount collected and the cash prize of the WVSU ™s bet in the Miss Range ™89 pageant, the respondent referred to the records, Annex œ5  and œ5-a  of the Answer, pointing to an amount of P1,900.00 necessary to close the amount of P15,592.75 on the actual receipt of only P13,622.75, and another amount of P2,000.00 deposited with the University Cashier.
   
   
9. He never caused the delivery of softdrinks to his hometown.
   
   
10. Respondent had nothing to do with the claim of one Noel Gaban for overtime pay, the claim having been given due course by the administrative and financial units of the University; the submission of his certificates of transfer, clearance and certificate of leave credits was merely delayed.
    
    
11. Respondent admits having received the cash advance of P10,000 for the purchase of xerox copies of medical books for the College of Medicine but upon discovery that the xerox copies were pirated editions coming from Taiwan, he aborted the purchase and returned the P10,000.00 he advanced to the cashier of the University as shown by Official Receipt No. 0810346 dated September 20, 1989.
    
    
12. As to the amount of P71,200.00 allegedly not entered in the books of account of the University of Southern Mindanao, respondent explained that he was eventually given a clearance with notation.
    
    
13. The allegation that he instructed the security guard assigned in the College of Agriculture and Forestry (CAF) to sell confiscated lumber was denied by respondent thru the affidavits of a certain Pantaleon Belandres and Yen Suprecencia as well as the Committee Report dated October 26, 1989.
    
    
14. Respondent had the payment of the faculty processed but the delay was due to changes in the budgetary procedure in the DBM; the honoraria were, however, eventually paid.
    
    
15. Respondent contends that the delay in the payment of the NCC Salary differentials was not due to his acts or omissions but because of a provision in NCC 33 to the effect that payment of differentials should be based on savings of Personnel Service Function for the fiscal year and since there were no savings at the time, payment was not made.
    
    
16. The hiring of additional teachers was due to increase in enrollment in the College of Arts and Sciences and since there were no plantilla items given, the DBM allowed the employment of instructors on a daily basis as shown in Annex œ12  of his Answer.
    
    
17. Respondent denied having anything to do with the promotions of faculty members, the same being incumbent on the NCC 33 Evaluation Committee and the Committee on Review. Respondent ™s participation therein was merely in the authentication of the promotions. As to the non-teaching personnel, the procedures of the Civil Service were followed.
    
    
18. Respondent justified the hiring of an Architect and Engineer as there were available instructor positions.
    
    
19. The Instructor V alluded to as performing clerical work in respondent ™s office was denied. The Clerk, Ms. Lea Lebrilla, was a member of the academic staff.
    
    
20. Respondent denied, likewise, that he was the cause of the delay in the payment of salaries of the laborers in the Lambunao campus. The responsibility should be borne by the Dean of the College of Agriculture and Forestry for not checking the requirements for the release of such salaries.
    
    
21. On the matter of the Teacher Education Grant (TEG), the alterations consisting in the reduction of the grade point average for the maintenance of the scholarship as well as the increase in stipends were approved by the WVSU Board of Regents (BOR); approved by the WVSU BOR likewise were the subsequent decrease of the stipends for the second, third or fourth year TEG ™s and the phasing-out thereof by December 31, 1989.
    
    
22. The WVSU BOR approved the integration of the College of Agriculture in the main campus to the Lambunao campus as it was difficult and expensive to maintain two campuses,
    
    
23. Respondent asserts that the designation of the Dean of the College of Medicine was based on the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee which then forwarded its recommendation to the DECS Secretary, who in turn caused the same to be effected by the WVSU BOR. He denies having violated any agreement with the protesting faculty of the College of Medicine.
    
    
24. Respondent added that he recommended for designation as Director of Instruction one whom he believed possesses all the qualifications and potentials therefore but that his nomination was not given due course. Instead the WVSU BOR created a committee to provide qualification standards for the nomination of Director of Instruction.
    
    
25. The appointment of Avelino Paderna as Vice President for Administration was made pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection Board which based the same on the criteria provided by the Civil Service Commission.
    
    
26. Respondent denied having coerced anybody to execute an affidavit against anyone. Respondent advances that the reason the affiant, Dr. Andresito Millamena, turned against him was respondent ™s act in asking the affiant to explain his (affiant ™s) alleged involvement in the barter of carabaos.
    
    
27. The charge of harassment was denied, respondent maintaining that the charge was filed against three faculty members only after their explanations proved to be unsatisfactory.
    
    
28. Respondent avers compliance with the alleged violation regarding markings on the official car of the WVSU President.
    
    
29. Respondent denies utilizing University services for personal needs, attaching affidavits contradicting allegations that University personnel sewed the dresses of respondent ™s wife and cooked for the respondent and his wife.
    
    
30. As to the charge of threatening to close the laboratory school, respondent maintains that if the school referred to was in SEAFDEC, such had been turned over to a foundation.
    
    
31. Anent the alleged encroachment of respondent in the autonomous governance of the College of Medicine, respondent contends that the directive issued by the DECS Secretary was couched in general terms which required the issuance of guidelines by the BOR which have not as yet been finalized and that the demands of the faculty were beyond his power and authority. Respondent likewise entered a general denial as to the other charges.

B. Respondent ™s Answer to the complaint of Dr. Manuel Posecion et. al.

His answer contained these averments:

1. On Oppression
   
   
   1. Respondent denies this allegation as having no basis because he has never harassed and/or oppressed complainants in any manner. The acts alluded to as constituting oppression are acts within his prerogative and authority as WVSU President.
      
      
   2. The memorandum issued by respondent with respect to patients in the hospital was intended to protect the finances of the University. Respondent contends that at the end of 1987, the University Hospital had receivables of more than P3 million while its accounts payable were more than P2.6 million.
      
      
   3. Respondent adds that it is his prerogative as head of the University to cause the investigation of students for misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the hospital. The memorandum issued by him was not a threat but a proper exercise of the prerogative to inculcate discipline and proper decorum in the premises.
   
   All the memoranda are clear manifestations of respondent ™s desire to protect the school against the unwarranted and illegal acts of complainants. Respondent concludes that the purpose of the charges is to harass and embarrass his administration and ultimately relieve him as University President.
   
   
2. On Incompetence
   
   
   1. The matter of the designation of an OIC in the College of Medicine of the University Hospital goes with his position as President; that he cannot allow others to dictate to him how to exercise said authority, otherwise he would be violating the trust vested in him by his appointment as WVSU President and that such authority is not subject to review or approval by the faculty.
      
      
   2. The intention of respondent ™s memorandum (Annex œD ) as viewed from its contents is the survival of the University Hospital which, according to respondent, is in a quagmire of debts and that unless remedial measures are taken, the same may be lost to the prejudice of the University, the medical students and the public served by it.
   
   
3. On Dishonesty and Insubordination
   
   
   1. Respondent ™s request for nominees to the position of Director of the University Hospital was actually a form of consultation with the faculty; that the faculty ™s recommendation does not bind him; that Dr. Fajutrao is more qualified as OIC of the University Hospital and complainants ™ nominee, Dr. Manila, was already holding the position of Dean of the College of Medicine and to give him more work would be to lessen his effectiveness as Dean.
      
      
   2. Respondent denies the delay in the implementation of the creation of the three-man committee, attributing it to the difficulty in securing clearance to allow Dr. Rivera to serve in the committee.
      
      
   3. As to the affidavit of Piamonte, respondent dismisses it as œ[o]f no moment for it does not have any bearing in the question involved. 
      
      
   4. Respondent justifies his appointments of Architect Gaticales and Engineer Genciana as in line with the scheme to provide an in-house capability for planning, designing and supervising construction of infrastructure in the University without having to depend on the Department of Public Works and Highways in order to prevent delay. According to respondent, this is practiced by state colleges and universities where architects and engineers are hired but given token teaching loads, save if the volume of work is great where no teaching load is assigned.
      
      
   5. The alleged assessment of Regional Learning Centers (RLC) fees is in accordance with and authorized by the DECS, respondent alleges.
      
      
   6. Respondent avers the absence of mutual reciprocation in the withdrawal of cases filed by the parties as the reason why he did not withdraw his cases filed against some complainants.
      
      
   7. The directive of the DECS Secretary that he go on leave of absence was, according to respondent, changed on March 3, 1988. Instead of going on leave, respondent, with the consent of the WVSU BOR, may continue exercising his functions and duties in Manila until April 3, 1988; that upon his return, the arrangement was for Mr. Nieves, the designated University OIC, to be immediately relieved in accordance with administrative procedure.
      
      
   8. WVSU merely followed the practice of the release of medical incentives; when this was declared void, the practice was discontinued and the amounts received ordered reimbursed/refunded.
      
      
   9. The designation of Dr. Ernesto Rivera to the consultative staff was a consequence of the designation of Dr. Abello to the position of OIC Director of the University Hospital. However, when Dr. Abello declined his designation respondent designated instead Dr. Rivera who had all the qualifications for the position of Director of the Hospital. This was later on confirmed by the BOR which granted him honoraria for his services until he was relieved in October, 1988.
      
      On the matter of the appointment of Mr. Pantaleon Belandress it is stated that this was as a result of the Selection Board ™s screening. Although Belandres was number two, he was appointed, as the appointment was within the respondent ™s prerogative.
      
      
   10. With respect to the charge of conduct unbecoming a University President, respondent specifically denies the same as gratuitous opinions without evidence to substantiate the charge.

The records also show that aside from the above complaints, a letter-petition dated September 8, 1989, with annexes, was filed by Dr. Jesus L. Nieves, et al., against herein respondent praying for the respondent ™s investigation, preventive suspension, and dismissal. The charges against the respondent in this complaint are grouped under four main headings: dishonesty and other graft and corrupt practices, mismanagement, harassment of faculty, and conduct unbecoming a University President.

In a letter to Atty. Nellie N. Tansioco, Legal Division, DECS, dated January 30, 1990, Atty. Norberto J. Posecion, who acted as notary in the September 8, 1989, letter-petition, stated:

œMay I also bring to your attention that another complaint dated September 8, 1989 was filed by Mrs. Nola Hibionada, Jesus Nieves and many others also against VENANCIO GARAGAN x x x

Incidentally, a reading of the complaint/petition in the Garganera, et al. vs Garagan case would readily show that the charges thereon are also alleged in the Hibionada, Nieves, et al. vs Venancio Garagan case x x x 

Pursuant to the memorandum of my Office dated September 22, 1989, the DECS Secretary created a committee to investigate the charges against respondent. After hearing the DECS Investigating Committee (Committee for brevity) submitted its Consolidated Investigation Report dated March 10, 1991 to the DECS Secretary.

Based on the report, out of the consolidated thirty-nine (39) charges against respondent, twelve (12) were voluntarily withdrawn by the complainants thru their counsel. Consequently, twenty seven (27) charges were heard by the Committee and after a careful study of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the evaluation of both documentary and testimonial evidence presented, the Committee found respondent guilty of the charges of(1) abuse of authority in (a) the solicitation of gifts from suppliers for the College of Medicine; (b) the turning over of the Commission for Miss Range ™89 to the association of non-teaching personnel and (c) misrepresentation in the Memorandum he issued by making it appear that there was a WVSU BOR resolution reversing the rules pertaining to Teacher Education Grantees, when in fact there was no such resolution; and (2) conduct unbecoming a University President for using uncouth words and insulting language and for not honoring his commitments. In this Report, falsification of documents appears twice - as count 3 and as count 18.

However, the Committee absolved respondent of the other charges contending that the same were not proven or justified under the circumstances, or fell under the administrative disciplinary authority or prerogative of the respondent. The Committee recommended the penalty of suspension for one (1) year.

Subsequently, upon referral to the DECS Secretary, the latter adopted and agreed with the findings of the Committee and recommended that respondent be suspended for one (1) year but added that, inasmuch as the respondent has reached the retirable age of 63, he be directed to retire from the service to promote peace and order within the University community.

After a careful study and review of the records of this case, including the documentary evidence presented by the parties, I fully concur with the findings of the DECS Secretary and am convinced that indeed respondent is guilty of the charges he was found to have committed.

Examining the records, respondent failed to overcome the charge that he made gift solicitations from suppliers to equip the University Medical/Dental Clinic and the University Central Laboratory. While the intentions of respondent may be noble and laudable, that is for the improvement and well-being of the facilities of the University, the means resorted to were undeserving of a public official like respondent. The fact that respondent, in his letter of January 9, 1989, informed the various suppliers that he was able to secure funding for the payment of their unbooked accounts, and in exchange or reward therefore, he requested that said suppliers donate something in kind or in cash to the clinic and laboratory of the university, is unsurmountable proof that, indeed, respondent is guilty of misconduct. His letter of January 9, 1989, the contents of which respondent does not deny, speaks for itself herein.

I also observed that respondent had misled the WVSU College of Education, specifically the Teachers Education Grantees (TEG), into believing that a WVSU BOR resolution was issued as of June 6, 1989, revising the rules pertaining to the grantees. In his memorandum to the Dean of the College of Education dated June 6, 1989, respondent took it upon himself to assume that a BOR resolution was then in effect and existing when the truth of the matter was that there was no such resolution. The resultant effect was that the grantees failed to receive their monthly stipend of P400.00 for the semester of school year 1989-90 allegedly for lack of funds.

Upon close scrutiny of the records, it is also clear that respondent allowed WVSU school funds to be used for its candidate in the canvassing of the Miss Range ™89 pageant, with the understanding that the same be refunded. After deducting the said amount which was deposited with the Cashier of the University, respondent directed that the amount be turned over to the University Employees Association for proper disposition without giving a share to the WVSU bet. This, again, I consider as a clear case of abuse of authority amounting to misconduct on the part of respondent. I agree with the Committee ™s findings that, although respondent did not benefit from the proceeds his act of not giving a share to the Miss Range ™89 candidate of WVSU amounted to abuse of his authority.

The finding of the Committee for conduct unbecoming a university president by using uncouth words and insulting language and for not honoring his commitments is equally justified. Respondent, being a head of an institution of learning, like the WVSU, should have exercised more prudence and restraint in his dealings with his constituents in the university. Uncalled for utterances which ultimately will reflect on his personality and leadership should have been avoided by respondent in the first place.

I have not closed my eyes, however, to respondent ™s more than thirty-three (33) years in the government service; the fact that this is his first offense; and that he has no derogatory or criminal record. His actuations, to be sure, have not entirely blemished his integrity as President of the University. Nevertheless, let it be understood that when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object is not so much as to punish him; rather, it is to improve public service and preserve the people ™s faith and confidence in their government.

Culpable as he is of misconduct and conduct unbecoming a University President, he has to face the consequences of his acts. However, with the aforementioned mitigating factors which I appreciate in his favor, a greater degree of leniency is in order. Upon these premises, I consider the penalty of six (6) months suspension from office as appropriate.

WHEREFORE, Dr. VENACIO G. GARAGAN, President of the West Visayas State University (WVSU), Iloilo City, is hereby found GUILTY of misconduct and conduct unbecoming a university President as charged and is hereby meted the penalty of six (6) months SUSPENSION from office, effective upon receipt of a copy hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, September 2, 1991


By the President:
(Sgd.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON
Executive Secretary