Civil Service Commission vs. Jose Lucas Facts: On May 26, 1992, Raquel P.

Linatok, an assistant information officer at the Agricultural Information Division, Department of Agriculture (DA for brevity), filed with the office of the Secretary, DA, an affidavit-complaint against respondent Jose J. Lucas, a photographer of the same agency, for misconduct. Based on the description of the petitioner, while she was standing before a mirror, near the office door of Jose Lucas, she noticed a chair at her right side which Mr. Lucas sit at that very instant. Thereafter, Mr. Lucas bent to reach for his shoe, and at that moment she felt Mr. Lucas hand touching her thigh and running down his palm up to her ankle. She was shocked and suddenly faced Mr. Lucas and admonished him not to do it again or she will kick him. But Mr. Lucas touched her again and so she hit him. A verbal exchange then ensued; she was thrown out of the door, and was told never to enter the office again. On June 8, 1992, the Board of Personnel Inquiry of DA issued a summons requiring the respondent to answer the complaint. According to Lucas, he did not touch the thigh of the complainant and what happened was that he accidentally brushed complainants leg while reaching for his shoe. After a formal investigation, respondent was found guilty of simple misconduct with a penalty of suspension for 1 month and 1 day. In due time, respondent brought his case to the Civil Service Commission. Thereafter, the CSC issued a resolution finding the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and imposing on him a penalty of dismissal from the service. Respondent moved for reconsideration, but was denied. Then, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA set aside the resolution of the CSC and reinstated the resolution of BOPI of DA. The CA further assailed that the respondent was not given due process as he was not informed of the modification of the charge against him, the distinctions of simple and grave misconduct. He only came to know of the changes when he received the notice of the resolution dismissing him from service. Issues: 1. WON respondent Lucas was denied due process when the CSC found him guilty of grave misconduct on a charge of simple misconduct. 2. WON the act complained of constitutes grave misconduct. Held:

1. The SC sustained the ruling of the CA that the basic requirement of due process is that a person must be duly informed of the charges against him, and that a person cannot be convicted of a crime which he was not charged. Administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process in investigations and hearings. 2. Under the circumstances, the act of the respondent is not constitutive of grave misconduct, in the absence of proof that respondent was maliciously motivated. It has also been noted that the respondent has been in the service for 20 years and this is his first offense.

By: rgl