Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSTON ON HI'!,TA}I RIGHTS

Reg:ion 02
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

A}IATIZA M. I{ARCIA}IO

-versus- FOR: SIMPLE MISCOIIDUCT

ISABEL BASSIG
CHR RESOLUTION NO.Zor?-or1

This is a complaint for

alleged violation of Simple
Misconduct and a violation of International- Law particularly
Articfe 71 of the Convention for Civil and Political Rights.
As can be gleaned from the records of the case, complainant
Annaliza Marciano, 31 years of age and a cl-assroom teacher of
Ugac Sur, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan executed an earlier complaint
against their school- principal Mrs. Isabel Bassig, herein
respondent, for the acts of humiliation and ridicufe committed
against her person. This was however dismissed after the parties
entered into an amicabl-e settlement. On June 26,2009 however,
herein complainant executed her affidavit charging respondent
for oppressi-on and misconduct as respondent again maliciously
harass and humiliate complainant. The incident happened last
June 18, 2009 around 9:30 AM when respondent confronted her if
she had already submitted her Form 01 and class records to which
complainant replied " !fia'am piaasa ko na po sa iyo". Respondent
at that juncture shoted in a loud voice the following " hin&L mo
pa pila'asa sa akin, ikaw aa teaeher aag biaigay kong gra& sayo
ay uasatisfactory, lrur.g tatJ.ong .beseg na ,'nsatisfactozar ay you
are ovt of the senice". Complainant as a consequence became
hysterical and told respondent ttwe wiII see eacb other ia coart"
Now, after a judicious review of the records of this case,
the issues to be resolved are whether herein respondent has
violated ahy International Humanitarian Law and could be hel-d
liable for Misconduct. The Supreme Court has defined the context
of Misconduct in varj-ous cases decided by it as "a transgression
of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer. " The conduct of herej.n respondent is clearly a
manifestation of Misconduct in all its aspect. The only point
for our consideration now then is whether the misconduct
committed by herein respondent is Simple or Grave. The
misconduct is grave if it involves any of t.he additional-
elements of corruption, will-ful intent to violate the law, or to
r{'i cran:rr{ aat:l-rl i qhod rrr'l aq wh'i nh mrrqt lra asJ-:l'rl i qhad l^rrr
 charge of qrave misconduct,.
misconduct, consi-sts in the corruption,
act
as an e]ement of qrave
person who unlawfully and wrongfully of an orrici_ar or f iou-iary
character to procure '=o*" uses ;1" station or
person' contrary to duty and benefiJ roi himself tr for another
not be tantamount to a -crime the rights of others. An act need
misconduct as in fact, crimes ;;; l] to be considered as grave
treated as a separate ground involving *orur- turpitude
(A) (3)' Rul-e rv for dismi-ssaf - rrrrO". Section are
the uniform Rules on Administrative
GSrS rzs. ARWIN T."rMA?ORDOMO
52
G.R. Uo.- lg121g May 37, 207j, cases. (

Respondent herein, being a principal

a high degree of professionalism should always act with
must not only be characterized and responsj-b11ity.
-;;; Her conduct
must ar-so be in accordance with by prop.iutv decorum, but
of uprightness, fairness and honesty the't_aw. sh; be a model
"rro,rro
to maintain the people,s
fi"ffi:i j,:f,j'.r.trn 1n her parricularrv rhe srudenrs and teachers
rn additlon, The code of conduct
Public officiar-s and Employees and Ethical standards for
promote a high standard enunciates the policy to
public of f icia1.". "l in public
"tfri"" to discharge "auau
service, and enjoins
_ur.d employees their
utmost responsibility, duties
the code rays down - theintegrity and competence. section 4wlth of
official norms of conduct which every publlc
r1d empl0yee shali- observe in the discharge and
executi_on of their offi"i_rt
they shalr- at all times respect duties, specifically providing that
refrain from doing acts contrary the rights oi othersr d,'d
customs, public policy, pubric to law, good moralsr good
orier, and public interest. Thus,
any conduct contrary to 1h""" standards
unbecoming of a gorr..r,*.nt woufd qualify as conduct
employee.
G.R. t/os. J04304_05 June 22, 1gg3 (luningning Jandrito vs. csc
The circumstances of this case
herein respondent is tiaUte. show without doubt then that
transgression of some estabrished forci*pJ" misconduct, defined as a
behavior r oT negligence committed iure of action, an unr_awfur-
be held r-iabfe -roi by a public officer. she cannot
grrrr. misconduci
substantiar- evidence- showing that "i.r". this offense requires
corrupt or inspired by an intentionar"r. acts complained of were
in persistent disregar'o ;f wer-I-knownto vior_ate ii-,.- r." o.r were
there is rack oi evidence showing regar ru-r_es. rn this case,
actuations were motivated by any that the respondent, s
intentionalry or wi'Ifully corr-upt lnterest or were done
establ_ished rules. t; viorate the law and the
Now qoing to the internatlonal_
11 0f the rnternational Iaw thus viol_ated, Article
convention
Rights in accordance with the uni-versar- for civir_ and pofitical
Rights rikewise imparts that no Declaration of Human
arbitrary or unlawful interference one shar-r be subjected to
with his prirracy, family,
::l;.:JiJ,.,o.tt""oondencer of to unlawful arracks t' his honor and
Records, however, revea] that the
complainant only wants to
:ffi.1;;..,1'1".1^.-1..,._^.i:.1:: which was raken up in their
L I|HEREFORE, premises considered this case t-s hereby closed
and terminated subject to monitorinq by this office.
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, May !4, 201 3.

Recomme ng Approval:

Atty. ryJ. B
Attorney
Approve_

Region