EN BANC

[G.R. No. 106498. June 28, 1993.]

LOLITA DADUBO , petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and the

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES , respondents.

Francisco P. Duran for petitioner.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; FINDINGS OF FACTS OF

ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES; CONTROLLING ON THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY IF BASED ON
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. — The rule is that the ndings of fact of administrative bodies, if
based on substantial evidence, are controlling on the reviewing authority. It is settled that it
is not for the appellate court to substitute it own judgment for that of the administrative
agency on the suf ciency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.
Administrative decisions on matters within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and can
only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.
2. PETITIONER'S INVOCATION OF DUE PROCESS IS WITHOUT MERIT; REASON. — The
petitioner's invocation of due process is without merit. Her complaint that she was not
suf ciently informed of the charges against her has no basis. While the rules governing
judicial trials should be observed as much as possible, their strict observance is not
indispensable in administrative cases. As this Court has held, "the standard of due process
that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain latitude as long as the
element of fairness is not ignored."
3. THE CHARGE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE; THE ALLEGATION OF THE ACTS
COMPLAINED OF IS CONTROLLING, NOT THE DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENSE. — It is true
that the petitioner was formally charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
bank and not speci cally with embezzlement. Nevertheless, the allegations and the
evidence presented suf ciently proved her guilt of embezzlement of bank funds, which is
unquestionably prejudicial to the best interest of the bank. The charge against the
respondent in an administrative case need not de drafted with the precision of an
information in a criminal prosecution. It is suf cient that he is apprised of the substance of
the charge against him; what is controlling is the allegation of the acts complained of, not
the designation of the offense.
4. THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO STATE CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY THE
FACTS AND THE LAW ON WHICH A DECISION IS BASED; APPLIES ONLY TO COURTS OF
JUSTICE AND NOT TO ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES LIKE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
— We must also dismiss the petitioner's complaint that CSC Resolution No. 92-878 failed
to comply with the constitutional requirement to state clearly and distinctly the facts and
the law on which a decision is based. We have held that this provision applies only to
courts of justice and not to administrative bodies like the Civil Service Commission. In any
event, there was an earlier statement of the facts and the law involved in the decision
rendered by the MSPB dated February 28, 1990, which af rmed DBP's decision to dismiss
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the petitioner. In both decisions, the facts and the law on which they were based were
clearly and distinctly stated.

DECISION

CRUZ , J : p

Petitioner Lolita A. Dadubo, Senior Accounts Analyst and Rosario B. Cidro, Cash Supervisor,
of the Development Bank of the Philippines, Borongan Branch were administratively
charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. 1 The charges were
based on reports on the unposted withdrawal of P60,000.00 from Savings Account No.
87-692 in the name of Eric Tiu, Edgar Tiu, and/or Pilar Tiu.
LLjur

The formal investigations revealed that in the morning of August 13, 1987, Erlinda Veloso,
authorized representative of the Tius, presented an undated withdrawal slip for
P60,000.00. 2 Dadubo, as acting teller, prepared the corresponding ticket and voucher in
the name of the cash supervisor, Rosario Cidro. Dadubo initialed the withdrawal slip, ticket
and voucher, all dated August 13, 1987, and passed on to Cidro all the documents on the
said transaction. These were then forwarded to the accountant, Reynaldo Dorado, who
signed the voucher ledger card and passbook, Babaylon initialed the withdrawal slip and
returned the documents to Dorado, who approved the withdrawal and thereafter disbursed
the P60,000.00 to Veloso. The Received payment portion of the withdrawal slip was
signed by Veloso but Cidro, who disbursed the amount, failed to initial the passbook.
After banking hours, another withdrawal slip was presented by Feliciano Bugtas, Jr., also
an employee of the Tius. 3 This was the second P60,000.00 withdrawal. Veloso did not
know about it. The withdrawal slip was processed and approved on the same day, August
13, 1987. The space Posted by was initialed by Babaylon but no posting was actually
made because the passbook was not presented. While the withdrawal slip was dated
August 13, 1987, all other supporting documents were dated August 14, 1987, this being a
withdrawal after banking hours (ABH).
The following day, August 14, 1987, prior to the payment of the ABH withdrawal, Veloso
presented another undated withdrawal slip for P60,000.00. 4 This was the third
P60,000.00 withdrawal. The withdrawal slip was received by Dorado, who handed it to
Dadubo. At that time, Cidro was encashing the check at PNB to satisfy the ABH
withdrawal. When she returned from the bank, she paid this withdrawal to Veloso, who
thought that what she was collecting was the P60,000.00 corresponding to the withdrawal
slip she presented that morning.
When Dadubo informed Cidro about the third withdrawal, till money of P100,000.00 was
made to service it. Prior to the payment of the third P60,000.00 withdrawal, Veloso came
back and presented another withdrawal slip for P40,000.00. 5 The petitioner claimed she
disbursed P100,000.00 to Veloso, covering the third P60,000.00 and the P40,000.00
withdrawals. On the other hand, Veloso testi ed that she received only P40,000.00 from
the petitioner. She acknowledged receipt of the amount by signing the withdrawal slip and
indicating opposite her signature the amount of P40,000.00.
That left the balance of P60,000.00 unaccounted for and directly imputable to Dadubo.
On the basis of these ndings, DBP found Dadubo guilty of dishonesty for embezzlement
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 of bank funds. She was penalized with dismissal from the service. 6 Cidro was adjudged
guilty of gross neglect of duty and fined in an amount equivalent to one month basic salary,
payable through salary deductions in not more than 12 installments.
Dadubo appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), 7 which af rmed the
decision of the DBP, declaring as follows:
There is nothing in the records to show that the Senior Manager, Personnel
Services and Vice-Chairman, both of the DBP, abused their discretion in deciding
the case against the appellant or that their decision was made and attended with
arbitrariness or unfairness. To all intents and purposes, the ensuing decision was
a necessary consequence of the evidence.

However, DBP was reversed by the Civil Service Commission in its Resolution No. 91-642,
dated May 21, 1991, 8 which reduced Dadubo's penalty to suspension for six months on
the ground that:
Although Dadubo made alterations on the dates in the Ledger Card from August
13 to August 14, the fact remains that the bank was defrauded on account of said
ABH withdrawal (for) which Cidro is held responsible and accordingly found guilty
of Gross Neglect of Duty and Inef ciency and Incompetence in the Performance
of Of cial Duty. It was also Dadubo who reported on the irreconcilable
P60,000.00. The most that Dadubo could be charged with is willful violation of
of ce regulation when she undertook reconciliation for under the Bank Manual
the tellers are not allowed access to the savings account ledger cards.

Respondent DBP moved for reconsideration. On July 16, 1992, the Commission acting
favorably on the motion, promulgated Resolution No. 92-878 9 af rming the earlier
findings of the DBP as to Dadubo's guilt, thus. —
The records reveal that Dadubo admitted in her Answer that she changed entry of
the date August 13 to 14 in the ledger in the course of her reconciliation which she
was advised not to do.

xxx xxx xxx

This act of admission needs no further elaboration to prove that Dadubo is guilty
of the charge. such admission is however treated as a mitigating circumstance
which is offset by the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of her
of cial position. There is no reason for her to change or alter entries in the ledger
unless she intends to benefit therefrom or to conceal some facts.

Further, it should be noted that the report was made only on September 28, 1987
(the date the report on reconciliation was submitted to the Regional Of ce). It
should be emphasized as earlier stated that Dadubo was not authorized to
reconcile the subsidiary ledger cards for the period ending August 20, 1987.
Hence, as emphatically stated in the MSPB decision, ". . . respondent Dadubo
manipulated the bank records to conceal the offense which constituted the act of
dishonesty."

The opinion of an acting Internal Audit Of ce, whose report was among the
preliminary ndings considered in the investigation of the case, is not conclusive
as there are other available and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of Dadubo.

Dadubo has brought her case to this Court in this petitioner for certiorari. She claims that
CSC Resolution No. 92-878 failed to comply with the constitutional requirement to state
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which the decision is based; CSC Resolution
No. 92-878 con icts with the ndings of fact in CSC Resolution No. 91-642; the
Commission manifestly overlooked or disregarded certain relevant facts not disputed by
the parties; and it based its conclusions entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures.
Required to comment, the Solicitor General argued that CSC Resolution No. 92-878 did not
need to restate the legal and factual bases of the original decision in CSC-MSPB No. 497
which already explained the relevant facts and the applicable law. The petitioner had
admitted that she changed the entry of the dates in the subsidiary ledger card from August
13 to 14 in the course of her reconciliation work although she was not authorized to do
this. This admission, along with the other evidence presented during the investigation in
the bank, proved Dadubo's guilt. Moreover, the af davit of Albert C. Ballicud was
inadmissible in evidence because he was never subjected to cross-examination.

The petitioner's challenges are mainly factual. The rule is that the ndings of fact of
administrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on the reviewing
authority. 1 0 It is settled that it is not for the appellate court to substitute it own judgment
for that of the administrative agency on the suf ciency of the evidence and the credibility
of the witnesses. 1 1 Administrative decisions on matters within their jurisdiction are
entitled to respect and can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud
or error of law. 1 2 None of these vices has been shown in this case.
The petitioner's invocation of due process is without merit. Her complaint that she was not
suf ciently informed of the charges against her has no basis. While the rules governing
judicial trials should be observed as much as possible, their strict observance is not
indispensable in administrative cases. 1 3 As this Court has held, "the standard of due
process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain latitude as long as
the element of fairness is not ignored." 1 4
The essence of due process is distilled in the immortal cry of Themistocles to Eurybiades:
"Strike, but hear me rst!" Less dramatically, it simply connotes an opportunity to be heard.
The petitioner had several opportunities to be heard and to present evidence that she was
not guilty of embezzlement but only of failure to comply with the tellering procedure. Not
only did she testify at her formal investigation but she also led a motion for
reconsideration with the DBP, then appealed to the Merit System Protection Board
(MSPB), and later elevated the case to the Civil Service Commission. Having been given all
these opportunities to be heard, which she fully availed of, she cannot now complain that
she was denied due process.
Appreciation of the evidence submitted by the parties was, to repeat, the prerogative of
the administrative body, subject to reversal only upon a clear showing of arbitrariness. The
rejection of the af davit of Ballicud, for example, was not improper because there was
nothing in that document showing that the petitioner did not embezzle the P60,000.00.
It is true that the petitioner was formally charged with conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the bank and not speci cally with embezzlement. Nevertheless, the allegations
and the evidence presented suf ciently proved her guilt of embezzlement of bank funds,
which is unquestionably prejudicial to the best interest of the bank.
The charge against the respondent in an administrative case need not de drafted with the
precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is suf cient that he is apprised of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the substance of the charge against him; what is controlling is the allegation of the acts
complained of, not the designation of the offense. 1 5
We must also dismiss the petitioner's complaint that CSC Resolution No. 92-878 failed to
comply with the constitutional requirement to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the
law on which a decision is based. We have held that this provision applies only to courts of
justice and not to administrative bodies like the Civil Service Commission. 1 6 In any event,
there was an earlier statement of the facts and the law involved in the decision rendered by
the MSPB dated February 28, 1990, which af rmed DBP's decision to dismiss the
petitioner. In both decisions, the facts and the law on which they were based were clearly
and distinctly stated.
It is worth adding that inasmuch as Civil Service Resolution No. 92-878 was rendered only
to resolve DBP's motion for reconsideration, it was not really necessary to restate the
factual and legal bases for the said decisions. Even resolutions issued by this Court do not
need to conform to the rst paragraph of Article VIII, Section 14, of the Constitution, for
reasons extensively discussed in Borromeo v. Court of Appeals 1 7 and other subsequent
cases. 1 8
We nd no justi cation to nullify or modify the questioned resolution. It would perhaps
have been more thorough if certain other of cers of the bank had been also investigated
for their part in the anomalous transaction. But that matter is not before this Court and
cannot be resolved by us at this time.
WHEREFORE, the petitioner is DISMISSED for lack of a clear showing of grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Civil Service Commission in issuing the questioned
resolutions. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon,
Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ ., concur.
Padilla, J ., is on leave.

Footnotes

1. Annex "I," Rollo, p. 44.

2. Annex "C," Ibid., pp. 36; 55-56.

3. Annex "D," Id., pp. 37; 56.

4. Annex "E," id., pp. 38; 57.
5. Id., p. 60.

6. Id., p. 62.
7. Id., pp. 110-120.

8. Id., pp. 31-35.

9. Id., pp. 27-30.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 10. Jaculina v. National Police Commission, 200 SCRA 489; Biak-na-Bato Mining Co. v. Tanco,
Jr., 193 SCRA 323; Doruelo v. Ministry of National Defense, 169 SCRA 448.
11. Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs of the Of ce of the President v. Court of
Appeals, 169 SCRA 27; Lao Tang Bun v. Fabre, 81 Phil. 628.

12. Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Garcia, 199 SCRA 278; Greenhills Mining Co. v. Of ce of the
President, 163 SCRA 350; Lovina v. Moreno, 9 SCRA 557; Timbancaya v. Vicente, 9
SCRA 852.
13. Baustista v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 196 SCRA 470.

14. Adamson and Adamson, Inc. v. Amores, 152 SCRA 237; Gas Corp. of the Phil. v. Incoing,
93 SCRA 653.
15. Heirs of Celso Amarante v. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 585; Eugenio, sr. v. Velez, 185
SCRA 425.
16. Prudential Bank v. Castro, 158 SCRA 646; BUSCAYNO V. eNRILE, 102 SCRA 7; Mangca v.
Commission on Elections, 112 SCRA 273.
17. 186 SCRA 1.
18. Candelaria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93685, August 20, 1990 (Min. Resolution); Nicos
Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 127.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com