RepublicofthePhilippines

SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
A.M.No._________March10,2010
FO1ROBINT.PAMINTUAN,Petitioner,
vs.
CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION(CSC),andBUREAUOFFIRE
PROTECTION,REGIONIII,Respondent.
TheCase
ThisisapetitionforcertioraritosetasidethedecisionoftheCivilService
Commission finding the petitioner, Robin T. Pamintuan, guilty of
INSUBORDINATION under Sec. 52, par. B.5 of the Uniform Rules on
AdministrativeCasesintheCivilService(CSCResolutionno.991936).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, FO1 Robin T. Pamintuan is

herebyguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtinviolationofSec.52,par.B.5
oftheUniformRulesonAdministrativeCasesintheCivil Service and is
herebysentencedofsuspensionofonemonth
andonedaytosixmonths
suspensionshouldbeimposedagainst
thepetitioner.

TheFacts
PetitionerRobinPamintuanwasappointedasfiremanbyBureauof Fire
ProtectiononJuly16,2003andwasassignedinSta.RitaFireStationin
Pampanga.BureauOrderNo.2004522datedApril30,2004requiredall
indicatedBFPpersonnelthereintoundergopublicsafetybasicrecruitcourse
(PSBRC)coveringtheperiodfromMay13toSeptember13,2004atFire
NationalTrainingInstituteatVicenteLim,CalambaCity,Laguna.Petitioner
wasoneoftheofficersorderedtoattendthesaidPSBRC.Pursuantthereto,
Pamintuan sent a letter addressed to Gen. Rogelio Asignado (Officerin
Charge)thathecannotattendthesaidtrainingforthereasonthathiswife
recentlylefttheirconjugalhomebecausehehastotakecareoftheir2year
oldson.Hefurtherassertthathewasnotreadythentoundergosuchcourse
because of such problem as his mind was nowhere; psychologically and
emotionallynotprepared.
However, Asignado did not reply. Hence, Pamintuan assumed that the
formerreceivedtheletter,thuspermittinghimnottoattendthemeeting.On
June 3, 2004, the SRSUPT Rodrigo Abrazaldo sent a memorandum
regardingtheconductofinvestigationtofourofficerswhowerenotableto
attendthecourse,petitioner,beingoneofthem.Inthesaidmemo,BFP

recommended conduct of impartial investigation and institution for

disciplinaryactionshouldtheevidencewarrants.
Thereafter, SRINSP (ATTY) Raul Macatangay, issued a radio message
[markedasANNEXC]withciteno.IAS0806200404onJune09,
2004.ThetextofthemessageistoinstructandadviceifFO1Pamintuanto
submit an explanation letter within 72 hours on why he should not be
charged with insubordination for his failure to attend such course as
mandatedbytheaforementionedBureauOrder.However,becauseofthe
erroneoustypographicallydraftradiomessageinthesubjectsnamewritten
in the text of the radio to wit, FO1 Robin Sunga BFP, though it was
intendedtobeasFO1Pamintuan,itwasprobablethatthesubjectbyno
meansabidedbyitasnorecordswereavailablewhetherornothesubmitted
anexplanationletter.However,onJanuary21,2005,Pamintuansubmitted
anexplanationletteraffirmingthelettersubmittedonMay06,2004.He
furtherexplainedthatnocommentwassentthereafter.
Following those events, Rodel Manuel, chief of internal affairs services,
BFP,filedanaffidavitofcomplaintasaformaladministrativecomplaintof
INSUBORDINATION against herein petitioner. Manuel alleged that
PamintuandisregardedtheeffortsoftheBureauanditseffortinproviding
him with the basic fire fighting techniques needed for the purpose of
proficiencyandefficiencyenhancementinhischosencareerasfirefighter.
Petitioner was given five days to file a counter affidavit to answer the
complaintagainsthim.
Pamintuancontendedthatthefivedayperiodwastooshort,henceheprayed
fora15dayextensionperiodwithinwhichtofilehiscounteraffidavitand
other controverting evidence. The extension was granted but only for a
period of 10 days. Furthermore, the legal counsel of herein petitioner
requestedtocorrectfirsttheradiomessagesandclearlyindicatethatsaid
messagesanddocumentssentbyBFPrefertoRobinPamintuan,andnot
RobinSunga.However,Manuelcontendedthattherewasnoneedtocorrect
themessagebecausethesaidcomplaintstillmanifestanobviousperception
thatitwasdirectedtoFO1Pamintuan,henceitwasdeemedappropriateto
fileaformalchargeagainstPamintuanofInsubordination.Despiteallthese,
thepetitionerfailedtosubmitsuchcounteraffidavit.
In the preliminary investigation report dated April 14, 2008, it was
ascertainedthatPamintuanclearlydefiedBureauOrderNo.2004522and
failedtopresentintelligentanswer/defensewhengiventheopportunityto
explainhisside.Moreover,theyascertainedthatthepetitionerwasgiven
due process in his case because he was duly notified of the complaint
sufficientinformandsubstance.Furthermore,itwasalsoestablishedthat
underRA9263thatregionaldirectors,astheappointingauthoritieshasalso
thepowertodisciplinetheofficerstheyappointed.

Findingaprimafacieevidence,aformalchargewasthereafterfiledagainst
thepetitionerfortheviolationoftheSec.52,par.B.5oftheUniformRules
onAdministrativeCasesintheCivilService(CSCResolutionno.991936).
Petitionerwasgiven72hoursfromthereceiptofsuchchargeunderoath
togetherwiththeaffidavitofthewitnessesandotherevidenceifanyaswell
asastatementofwhetherornothewillelectaformalinvestigation.Lastly,
itwasrecommendedthatapenaltyofonemonthandonedaytosixmonths
suspensionshouldbeimposedagainstthepetitioner.
TheRulingoftheCivilServiceCommission
In his December 15, 2009 Decision, Civil Service Commissioner
_______________, to whom Pamintuans case was assigned, ruled that
petitionerisguiltyofINSUBORDINATIONforrefusingtocarryoutan
orderofhissuperiortoattendthesaidpublicsafetybasicrecruitcourse
(PSBRC).
TheCommissionerreasonedthatpetitionerwillfullydisobeyedtheorderof
ahigherauthority.Theplanningandpreparationtoorganizeregulartraining
such as the PSBRC is a painstaking endeavor that requires a lot of
considerationinthenobleintentiontorefineanbringaboutacompetent
governmentemployee,anefficientandeffectivefirefighter.Oneofthemost
essentialinterestsoftheprominentindividualsintheBFPistheadherence
toBookVofExecutiveOrder292:
Sec. 30. Career and Personnel Development. the
development andretentionof acompetentand efficientwork
forceinthepublic service is the primary concern of
government. It shall be the policy of the government that a
continuing program of career and personnel development
beestablishedforallgovernmentemployeesatalllevels.An
integratednationalplanforcareerandpersonnel development
shallserveasthebasisforallcareerand
personnel development
activitiesinthegovernment.
Accordingly,theCivilServiceCommissionerdecidedthatPamintuanwas
validlydismissedfromhisworkduetoinsubordinationandhisdisobedience
tosubmittohissuperiors.
Thus, on December 15, 2009, the Commissioner dismissed petitioners
complaintforlackofmerit.
Dissatisfied,petitionerfiledanappealbeforethisCourt.
TheIssues

Thepetitionerraisesthefollowingissues:
I.
WHETHERORNOTTHECIVILSERVICECOMISSIONERREDIN
DECLARINGTHEPETITIONERGUILTYOFINSUBORDINATION.
II.
WHETHERORNOTTHEOFFICEOFTHEREGIONALDIRECTOR,
BFPREGION3ISTHEPROPERFORUMTOHEARTHISCASE.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMISSION
OBSERVEDTHEPROPERADMINISTRATIVEDUEPROCESS.
The Decision
The contention of petitioner is devoid of merit.
The CSC correctly ruled that petitioner was guilty of insubordination for not
attending the PSBRC covering the period from May 13 to September 13,
2004.
Insubordination is commonly defined as the failure to obey a lawful order. In
the Webster Dictionary it is defined as the state of being insubordinate.
Consequently, The term insubordinate means being disobedient or
rebellious; and refusing to obey orders or submit to authority.
In the case of Damacio-Jaoquin v Dela Cruz, this Court defined
insubordination as a refusal to obey some order, which a superior officer is
entitled to give and have obeyed. The term imports a willful or intentional
disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer or
superior.
In connection to the abovementioned definition, this Court, in the case of
Micro Sales Operation Network v NLRC, laid down two requisites of
insubordination or willful disobedience: (1) the employees assailed conduct
must have been willful, that is characterized by a wrongful and perverse
attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made
known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been
engaged to discharge.

Both requisites are present in this case. Firstly, petitioners act of not
attending the required PSBRC training shows willfulness on his part which
is characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. Petitioner willingly and
intentionally did not attend the public safety course ordered by his superior.
He knows that the said course is a basic requirement for his chosen career as
a fire fighter whether with or without an order from a superior, nevertheless
he still disobeyed the command of his superior to attend such course. In his
letter dated May 6, 2004 he said that he could not attend the said course
because of his pressing personal problems. He stated therein that his wife
recently left his conjugal home and has a three-year-old son in his custody.
Because of this problem he further stated that it might not be a sound
decision for him to attend because he will leave his son who is emotionally
and psychologically affected.
The petitioner claimed that the Bureau did not reply to the letter, which
made him assume that the Bureau has received it. The letter was sent May 6,
2004 but he did not made any effort to ascertain that the Bureau has received
the letter before the training on May 13, 2004. He had a week to confirm if
the Bureau received the letter and accepted his reason. He just relied on his
mere assumption, which can be considered as indicia of the willfulness on
his part of not attending the required course. However, given that the Bureau
received the letter we still agree with the CSC that the reason the petitioner
gave was not sufficient to warrant his failure to attend the training.
Being a fire fighter is considered as a public office, hence it is a public
interest. The reason he gave was a personal problem and not work-related,
consequently, this should not affect his duty to the Bureau as an employee or
subordinate and to the public as a fire fighter.
In his defense the petitioner further averred that like his son, he is also
affected psychologically and emotionally by the pressing personal problem
which makes him not ready to attend the course. According to him, it would
be unfair to the Bureau if he will attend such course when in the first place
his mind was nowhere. This Court finds this reason too shallow. He can
attend the said course by setting aside what he feels and by focusing on the
training rather than thinking of his personal problems. If his reason was
because of some physical incapability, this would have been a more
reasonable excuse for not attending the course.
It must also be noted that his son was only three years of age. Being of such
an early age, we cannot conclude that his son was already emotionally and
psychologically affected by the problem. There is a greater possibility that
his son was still not aware of what was happening around him. Furthermore,
petitioner was not able to present substantial proof so as to convince the
Bureau of his excuse. Thus, his rationalization on non-compliance with the
directive is deemed as an alibi or unmeritorious as his explanation lacks
integral parts to substantiate it and prove otherwise. This strengthens the
view that it was actually not the personal problem that hindered him to
attend the training but some unknown reason -- the personal problem was

merely an alibi. Hence it shows his willingness and intent of not attending
the said training.
As to the second requisite it is undeniable that the directive to attend the
course was lawful. The planning and preparation to organize regular training
such as the PSBRC is a painstaking endeavor that requires a lot of
consideration in the noble intention to refine and bring about a competent
government employee, an efficient and effective fire fighter. This is pursuant
to Sec. 30, Book V of Executive Order 292 which provides:
Sec. 30. Career and Personnel Development The development and
retention of a competent and retention of a competent and efficient work
force in the public service is the primary concern of government. It shall
be the policy of the government that a continuing program of career and
personnel development be established for all government employees at all
levels. An integrated national plan for career and personnel development
shall serve as the basis for all career and personnel development activities
in the government.

Thus, based on the forgoing statute, the petitioner has no reason for not
complying with the PSBRC as it required by the government for the public
welfare. Moreover, the duty to attend the PSBRC was made known to the
petitioner because it is part of his duty as a fireman to undergo the course for
the development of his knowledge regarding fire-fighting techniques.
A government employee is expected to give due courtesy and respect to his
superiors, maintain good conduct and behavior at all times, follow the rule
of law and not law of the jungle, otherwise, he forfeits his revere place or
position in the government. Thus, petitioners failure to attend the PSBRC
ordered by his superior without a reasonable excuse clearly proves that he is
guilty of INSUBORDINATION for failure to obey a lawful order.
Anent the second issue, the respondent commission correctly asserted that
the OfficeoftheRegionalDirector,BFPRegion3istheproperforumto
hear such case. Republic Act 9263, otherwise known as Bureau of Fire
ProtectionandBureauofJailManagementandPenologyProfessionalization
Actof2004vestedtheRegionalDirectorstheappointingauthoritytothe
firstlevelpositionsfromFireOfficers1toFireOfficers4ofbothbureausin
theirrespectiveareaofresponsibilities;towit:
SEC.5.AppointmentofUniformedPersonneltotheBFPandthe BJMP.
TheappointmentoftheBFPandtheBJMPshallbe effected in the following
manners:
a)Fire/Jail Officer I to Senior Fire/Jail Officer IV. Appointed by
therespectiveRegionalDirectorforFireProtectionandRegional Director
forJailManagementandPenologyfortheregionaloffice uniformed personnel or
bytherespectiveChiefoftheFireBureauand
ChiefoftheJailBureauforthe
nationalheadquartersoffice uniformedpersonnel,andattestedbytheCivilService
Commission (CSC)xxx

Clearly,thepetitionerwasputintosuchsupervisionwhenhewasappointed
asFO1onJuly16,2003.Inansweringtheissue,weapplythedoctrineof
necessary implication in statutory construction that what is implied in a
statuteisasmuchapartthereofasthatwhichisexpressed.Aselucidatedin
severalcases,thelatestofwhichisChuav.CivilServiceCommissionwhere
wesaid:
Nostatutecanbeenactedthatcanprovideallthedetails involvedinits
application. There is always an omission that may not meet a particular
situation.Whatisthought,atthetimeofenactment,tobeanallembracing
legislation may be inadequate to provide for the unfolding events of the
future.Socalledgapsinthelawdevelopasthelawisenforced.Oneofthe
rules of statutory construction used to fill in the gap is the doctrine of
necessaryimplication....Everystatuteisunderstood,byimplication,to
containallsuchprovisionsasmaybenecessarytoeffectuateitsobjectand
purpose,ortomakeeffectiverights,powers,privilegesorjurisdictionwhich
itgrants,includingallsuchcollateralandsubsidiaryconsequencesasmaybe
fairlyandlogicallyinferredfromitsterms.

Inthiscase,weaffirmthatsuchstatuteimpliesthatsinceBFPwasgiventhe
authoritytoappointofficers,itisimpliedwiththepowertodisciplineits
officers. Thus, it was only a rightful decision that the BFP National
HeadquartersaptlyturnedovertheinvestigationofthiscasetotheInternal
AffairsServices,BFPRegion3,asPamintuanwasrelievedfromBFPNCR
toBFPRegion3,pursuantSection5ofthesaidRepublicAct.Withthis,we
seenowrongastotheproperforumtoaddressthecaseatbar.
Astothethirdissue,petitionerRobinT.PamintuanassertsthattheCivil
Service Commissions decision could be nullified as he was denied due
processwithrespecttothehearingofhisadministrativecase.
FO1 Pamintuan assails that he was bereft of hearing before he was dismissed
and thus constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due process
of law. The standards of due process in judicial as well as in administrative
proceedings have long been established. In its bare minimum due process of
law simply means giving notice and opportunity to be heard before
judgment is rendered.
The basic requirement of due process is that which hears before it condemns,
which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.
Inobservingimpartialityanddueprocessassetforthunderexistingcivil
service laws, the office of the Bureau of Fire Protection flashed a radio
messagecitedasNo.OBFPR3IAS010605datedJanuary142005tothe
ProvincialMarshalofPampangaBFPtodirectandadvisehereinpetitioner
toreporttothesaidofficetodiscussandhearhispartoftheissue.
InthenoteworthycaseofVarOrientShippingCo.,Inc.,vsAchacozo,the
CivilServiceCommissionerstressedthat:

Theessenceofdueprocessissimplyanopportunitytobeheard,oras
appliedtoadministrativeproceedings,anopportunitytoexplainonesside,
or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complainedof.

Ang Tibay v. The Court of Industrial Relations outlines the basic due process
requirements in administrative cases. Foremost are the rights to a hearing
and submit evidence in support of one's case. Its essence is the opportunity
to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the ruling.
The standard of due process of administrative tribunals allows certain
latitude as long as the element of fairness is practiced. There is no denial of
due process if records show that hearings were held with prior notice to
adverse parties. Even without notice, there is no denial of procedural due
process if the parties were given the opportunity to be heard. Due process in
administrative proceedings simply means an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the order complained of and it cannot be fully equated
with that in strict jurisprudential sense.
Intheinstantcase,proceduraldueprocesshasbeencompliedwithwhen
FO1Pamintuanwasgiventheopportunitytorefutetheallegationsmade
againsthim.
Thiswasevidentfromformalchargesenttopetitioner.
AdherenttoSection11,Rule11oftheUniformRulesonAdministrative
Cases in the Civil Service, herein petitioner was duly notified of the
complaintthatissufficientinformandsubstance.Hewasrequiredtosubmit
acounteraffidavitunderoathwithcontrovertingevidence.Andwhilehe
submittedaletterthroughregisteredmailbyhiscounselaverringthatthey
didnotanswertheinformationforthereasonthatitwasallegedlyaddressed
toRobinT.Sunga,otherpiecesofevidenceshowsacaseagainstpetitioner.
Although this minor flaw is admitted, petitioners failure to submit a
CounterAffidavit is considered as a waiver or a flight form his
responsibilities.ThisCourtisconsistentinrulingthatflightisanindication
ofaguiltymindandisaclearevidenceofguilt.
The petitioner is entitled only to a fair opportunity to be heard and to a
decision based on substantial evidence. No more, no less.
By the same token, the conclusion of the Civil Service Commission that
petitioner was afforded due process before he was dismissed is binding on
this Court.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisdismissed.Thedecisionofpublicrespondent
Commission dated ___________ and his order dated _________ are

AFFIRMEDintoto,herebysuspendingthepetitionerthree(3)monthsand
one (1) dayas penalty as conferred withthe rules provided bySec. 52,
paragraphB.5oftheUniformRulesonAdministrativeCasesintheCivil
Service.
SOORDERED.
Orioste,C.J.