MA. FATIMA P.

LEE
JD 3A

ESTELITO V. REMOLONA
vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
G.R. No. 137473
August 2, 2001
PUNO, J.:
FACTS:
Estelito Remolona is the Postmaster of Infanta, Quezon while his wife Nery is
a teacher in Kiborosa Elementary School. On January 3, 1991, Francisco
America, the District Supervisor of Infanta inquired about Nerys Civil Service
eligibility who purportedly got a rating of 81.25%. Mr. America also disclosed
that he received information that Nery was campaigning for a fee of 8,000
pesos per examinee for a passing mark in the board examination for
teachers. It was eventually revealed that Nery Remolonas name did not
appear in the passing and failing examinees and that the exam no. 061285
as indicated in her report of rating belonged to a certain Marlou Madelo who
got a rating of 65%.Estelito Remolona in his written statement of facts said
that he met a certain Atty. Salupadin in a bus, who offered to help his wife
obtain eligibility for a fee of 3,000 pesos. Mr. America however, informed
Nery that there was no vacancy when she presented her rating report, so
Estelito went to Lucena to complain that America asked for money in
exchange for the appointment of his wife, and that from 1986-1988,
America was able to receive 6 checks at 2,600pesos each plus bonus of Nery
Remolona. Remolona admitted that he was responsible for the fake eligibility
and that his wife had no knowledge thereof. On recommendation of Regional
Director Amilhasan of the Civil Service, the CSC found the spouses guilty of
dishonesty and imposed a penalty of dismissal and all its accessory
penalties. On Motion for Reconsideration, only Nery was exonerated and
reinstated. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for review
and denied the motion for reconsideration and new trial.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a civil service employee can be dismissed from the
government service for an offense which is not work-related or which is not
connected with the performance of his official duty.

HELD:
Yes. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public
life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to
continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service. It cannot be
denied that dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable by dismissal
for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing
Book V of Executive Order No. 292. And the rule is that dishonesty, in order
to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the
performance of duty by the person charged. The rationale for the rule is
that if a government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of
oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not
connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in office. The
Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he
performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his government
position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of
dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the
government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of
his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which
renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less
disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and
actuations. Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

De Lara, Jr. vs. Cloribel

14 SCRA 269, May 31, 1965
Facts: Plaintiff was granted a timber license to log over an area in Claveria,
Misamis Oriental, during the non-renewal of plaintiffs license, P & B
Enterprises co., inc., filed a similar application. Having been approved over a
forest area also situated in Claveria, Misamis Oriental, immediately
constructed a logging road which extended partially within the area covered
by the plaintiffs timber concession. Plaintiff now secured for renewal of its
timber license where the company protested such approval as it would cause
conflict to the portion of the area. The Director of Forestry overruled the
protest, hence the same appealed to the Sec of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. Pendency of the protest, plaintiff continued his logging operation
and trespass the construction made by the company. Hence, this instant
action for injunction and damages before the court of first instance which
granted an ex parte writ of preliminary investigation.
Issue:
Whether or not the court of first instance committed a grave
abuse of discretion in issuing ex parte the writ of preliminary injunction.
Held: the court did not commit grave abuse of discretion as such general
rule may be relaxed when its application may cause great and irreparable
damage which cannot otherwise prevented except by taking the opportune
appropriate court action. The rule is inapplicable if it should appear that an
irreparable damage and injury will be suffered by a party if he should await,
before taking court action, the final action of the administrative official
concerned on the matter.
-

While as a rule, a petition for certiorari, which is interposed to dispute the validity of an order or
decision that may be rendered by an administrative official, cannot be entertained if the party in
interest fails to avail of the administrative remedies that the law affords to him, such rule may be
relaxed when its application may cause great and irreparable damage which cannot otherwise be
prevented except by taking the opportune appropriate court action.
The rule in inapplicable if it should appear that an irreparable damage and injury will be suffered by
a party if he should await, before taking court action, the final action of the administrative official
concerned on the matter.
Because of the conflict between the two loggers, the case was taken to the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources for his resolution, who in the meantime directed the parties to refrain from
entering and operating within the contested area, until the said case shall have been finally
decided. But before such resolution, de Lara disregarded the directive to the detriment of P&B.
The lower court did nothing but to maintain the status quo.