Maricel C.

Casison
99-19318
MOLLANEDA v UMACOB
G.R. 140128, June 6, 2001
FACTS: Sometime Sept 7, 1994, Leonida Umacob, a public school, teacher went to
the office of Mr. Rolando P. Suase to follow up her request for transfer to a different
district. Therein, Arnold Mollaneda, school Division Superintendent, after
entertaining her request hugged her, embraced her, kissed her nose and lip in a
torrid manner, and mashed her breast. Mollaneda did these acts for several times
then warned Umacob not to tell the incident to anybody.
Umacob reported the incident to the police station and filed a complaint for acts of
lasciviousness before the Municipal Trial Court. She also filed an administrative
complaint as well with the Civil Service Commission - Regional Office XI, Davao City
(CSC-RO XI). She furnished the Department of Education, Culture and Sports Regional Office XI, Davao City (DECS-RO XI) a copy of her affidavit-complaint.
A DECS investigating committee was formed, which later recommended to the DECS
Regional Director "the dropping of the case" for lack of merit. Meanwhile, the case
before the CSC was heard before Atty. Anacleto Buena, which hearing was attended
by both parties and their counsel. CSC found Mollaneda guilty, which was affirmed
by the Court of Appeals. Thus Mollaneda elevated the case to the SC. Mollaneda
alleges that 1) Umacob was guilty of forum shopping, 2) He was denied due
process, and 3) witnesses' testimonies were hearsay. Pending the SC case, the
Municipal Trial Court dismissed the case of acts of lasciviousness.
ISSUES:
1) Whether
2) Whether
3) Whether
4) Whether

or
or
or
or

not
not
not
not

Umacob was guilty of forum shopping

Mollaneda was denied of due process
court erred in giving weight to witnesses' testimonies
dismissal of the case in the MTC merits dismissal of the CSC case

HELD:
1) No. With regard to the DECS and CSC, DECS was just furnished a copy of the
complaint - it was not filed before the DECS. The resolution of DECS was just a
recommendatory resolution. With regard to the filing of the case both in the CSC
and the court, the case filed before the CSC is an administrative case while that
before the court is a criminal case, thus it does not constitute forum shopping.
2) No. During the hearing, Mollaneda actively participated in all proceedings and
cross-examined all witnesses. The hearing of the case before a hearing officer
rather than the commission itself is not a denial of due process. It is a well
settled principle that administrative bodies may designate hearing and reception
of evidence to a subordinate, on the basis of which evidence the body will decide
the case. Due process in administrative proceedings merely requires that the
tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the
views of a subordinate.

3) No. The witnesses' testimonies were offered not to prove its truth, but merely to
prove that Umacob told the witnesses what transpired in the office. What was
given more credence was the testimony of Umacob which was straight and
replete with details consistent with human nature.
4) No. Long-ingrained in our jurisprudence is the rule that the dismissal of a
criminal case against an accused who is a respondent in an administrative case
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not foreclose the administrative
proceeding against him or give him a clean bill of health in all respects. In
dismissing the case, the MTC is simply saying that the prosecution was unable to
prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, a condition sine qua
non for conviction because of the presumption of innocence which the
Constitution guarantees an accused. However, in administrative proceedings,
the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence, which the court finds
in this case.