7/29/2019 Mollaneda v. Umacob

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mollaneda-v-umacob 1/2

ARNOLD P. MOLLANEDAvs. LEONIDA C. UMACOB

G.R. No. 140128 June 6, 2001

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

FACTS:

Sometime Sept 7, 1994, Leonida Umacob, a public school, teacherwent to the office of Mr. Rolando P. Suase to follow up her requestfor transfer to a different district. Therein, Arnold Mollaneda,school Division Superintendent, after entertaining her requesthugged her, embraced her, kissed her nose and lip in a torrid

manner, and mashed her breast. Mollaneda did these acts forseveral times then warned Umacob not to tell the incident toanybody.

Umacob reported the incident to the police station and filed acomplaint for acts of lasciviousness before the Municipal TrialCourt. She also filed an administrative complaint as well with theCivil Service Commission - Regional Office XI, Davao City (CSC-ROXI). She furnished the Department of Education, Culture and

Sports - Regional Office XI, Davao City (DECS-RO XI) a copy of heraffidavit-complaint.

A DECS investigating committee was formed, which laterrecommended to the DECS Regional Director "the dropping of thecase" for lack of merit. Meanwhile, the case before the CSC washeard before Atty. Anacleto Buena, which hearing was attendedby both parties and their counsel. CSC found Mollaneda guilty,which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Thus Mollanedaelevated the case to the SC. Mollaneda alleges that 1) Umacobwas guilty of forum shopping, 2) He was denied due process, and3) witnesses' testimonies were hearsay. Pending the SC case, theMunicipal Trial Court dismissed the case of acts of lasciviousness.

ISSUE:

7/29/2019 Mollaneda v. Umacob

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mollaneda-v-umacob 2/2

1) Whether or not Umacob was guilty of forum shopping;2) Whether or not court erred in giving weight to witnesses'testimonies; and3) Whether or not dismissal of the case in the MTC merits

dismissal of the CSC.

HELD:

1) No. With regard to the DECS and CSC, DECS was justfurnished a copy of the complaint - it was not filed before theDECS. The resolution of DECS was just a recommendatoryresolution. With regard to the filing of the case both in the CSCand the court, the case filed before the CSC is an administrative

case while that before the court is a criminal case, thus it doesnot constitute forum shopping.

2) No. The witnesses' testimonies were offered not to prove itstruth, but merely to prove that Umacob told the witnesses whattranspired in the office. What was given more credence was thetestimony of Umacob which was straight and replete with detailsconsistent with human nature.

3) No. Long-ingrained in our jurisprudence is the rule that thedismissal of a criminal case against an accused who is arespondent in an administrative case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not foreclose the administrativeproceeding against him or give him a clean bill of health in allrespects. In dismissing the case, the MTC is simply saying that theprosecution was unable to prove the guilt of the respondentbeyond reasonable doubt, a condition sine qua non for convictionbecause of the presumption of innocence which the Constitutionguarantees an accused. However, in administrative proceedings,the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence, whichthe court finds in this case.