THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 151110, September 11, 2008]
SPL. POL. LT. RAMON TORREDES, Petitioner, v. CARLOS VILLAMOR, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
NACHURA, J.:
The very essence of tong collection is the personal unlawful gain at the expense of another by the abuse of one's authority. Verily, [petitioner] abused his being a Deputy Station Commander by unlawfully demanding for a weekly amount of PhP1,000.00 for his personal gain. Even the demand for one (1) lechon is a form of tong.Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the PEZA decision to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). In its resolution,8 the CSC affirmed the PEZA ruling dismissing petitioner from the service, thus:
It was clearly established that upon assuming his post as Deputy Station Commander of the MEZ Police, [petitioner] immediately summoned the President of the drivers' association. Right there and then [petitioner] demanded PhP1,000.00 tong per week from the said association for his personal gain. Whenever the association failed to give said tong, [petitioner] resorted to harassment and threats to the lives of the members of said association. This definitely is a grave misconduct.
On record are pieces of direct evidence proving the [petitioner's] harassment/threats. These are the two (2) IDs of Messrs. Sinangguti and Campos. During the hearing, it was certainly determined that the [petitioner] tore these IDs to harass/threaten the owners thereof for failure to give his PhP1,000.00 tong.
[Were] it not for the fact that the [petitioner] already became physical in his harassment/threats to life, it is believed that these drivers will not come out in the open and expose his nefarious activities. It was only when the [petitioner] physically attacked one (1) of the drivers that the association thought the [petitioner] is really capable of making good his threats to their lives.
The acts complained of do not only constitute grave misconduct, they are also conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Moreover, these acts could even be a basis for criminal prosecution.
By committing these violations, the [petitioner] betrayed the very trust reposed upon him as the Deputy Station Commander, the second in command in the MEZ Police Force. He, therefore, willfully chose to be unfaithful to his trust thereby causing undue damage to the image of the public service. It must be noted that "holders of government positions are mere trustees who are duty-bound and expected to serve the public with the highest standards of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency" (CSC Resolution No. 94-1758, March 29, 1994), and as this Authority has been emphasizing, honesty.
[Petitioner] should have kept in mind that he is an employee of that agency of government, which is involved in the noble task of rendering service. His conduct and behavior should perforce be circled around the norms of honesty and integrity.
x x x x
This Authority has always been guided by the principle that "when a public officer or employee is administratively disciplined, the ultimate objective is not the punishment of such public officer or employee, but the improvement of public service and the preservation of the people's faith and confidence in their government"7
After a careful evaluation of the records of the case, the [CSC] finds the appeal bereft of merit.Undaunted and as previously adverted to, petitioner appealed to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court which was dismissed for petitioner's failure to implead and furnish PEZA a copy of his appeal.
As defined, Grave Misconduct is a flagrantly or shamefully wrong or improper conduct. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful or corrupt behavior or gross negligence by the public officer.
Based on the records of the case, [petitioner] Torredes was found to have committed the following acts which are clearly unbecoming of a public officer of his stature: demanding and personally receiving a weekly "tong" amounting to One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) from the MEPZA Driver's Association; ordering Sinangguti to produce a lechon for his [petitioner's] birthday; and, pushing and threatening Sinangguti with bodily harm. These were established by the prosecution through the direct, positive, and categorical testimonies of its witnesses. Said testimonies cannot be easily overthrown by the [petitioner's] mere denial. It is a basic rule in evidence that a negative testimony cannot prevail over a positive one. Besides, factual findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but finality because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these quasi-judicial tribunals handling specific matters falling under their jurisdiction.
Further, there was no evidence on record to prove [petitioner's] allegation as to the ill-motive of the complainants in filing the charges against him. Besides, the said witnesses would not ordinarily testify against the [petitioner] unless there is some truth in their testimony.9
SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.Unmistakably, petitioner is a public officer whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual nature, involve the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of government.11 In turn, PEZA, which was created to effect and promote the common good, is petitioner's employer, an instrumentality of the government. Thus, PEZA first investigated and ascertained the veracity of the drivers' association's complaint against petitioner. Thereafter, finding petitioner liable for gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, PEZA, as the disciplining authority, meted the penalty of dismissal prescribed by law.
The general rule is that where the findings of the administrative body are amply supported by substantial evidence, such findings are accorded not only respect but also finality, and are binding on this Court. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of evidence. Thus, when confronted with conflicting versions of factual matters, it is for the administrative agency concerned in the exercise of discretion to determine which party deserves credence on the basis of the evidence received. The rule, therefore, is that courts of justice will not generally interfere with purely administrative matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies unless there is a clear showing that the latter acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion or when they have acted in a capricious and whimsical manner such that their action may amount to an excess of jurisdiction.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The decision of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority in Administrative Case No. 98-008, and Resolution Nos. 1439 and 2143 of the Civil Service Commission dismissing petitioner from the service, are hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Tinga*, Chico-Nazario(Acting Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.*, and Reyes, JJ., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
* Designated additional members in lieu of Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez per Special Order No. 517 dated August 27, 2008.
1Rollo, pp. 148-149.
2 Id. at 30.
3 Id. at 33-39.
4 (4) Misconduct.
5 (27) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
6Rollo, pp. 67-79.
7 Id. at 77-78.
8 Id. at 120-126.
9 Id. at 125-126.
10 DE LEON AND DE LEON JR., THE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW, 2000 Edition, p. 1.
11 INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, Sec. 2(14).
12Lourdes T. Domingo v. Rogelio I. Rayala, G.R. NOS. 155831, 155840, 158700, February 18, 2008.
13 414 Phil. 590, 601 (2001).