As I See It

Curious case of Agnes Raguinan, teacher

By Neal Cruz
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:45:00 02/27/2009

Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice), Legal issues, Justice & Rights

What’s going on in the Supreme Court? It supposed to be the highest court in the
land that corrects errors of lower courts and dispenses justice without fear or favor. Of
late, however, this image of an incorruptible court has been tarnished. The case of
retired Associate Justice Ruben Reyes is just one case in point.

Reyes was found guilty of grave misconduct by the en banc and fined P500,000,
to be deducted from his retirement benefits, for leaking an unpromulgated and
confidential decision on the citizenship of Negros Oriental province’s Rep. Jocelyn
Limkaichong. There are other cases that shake the faith of the ordinary citizen on the
integrity and objectivity of the tribunal. A common complaint is the dismissal by the SC
of appealed cases through minute resolutions, without any explanation why they were
dismissed despite a constitutional provision mandating that all decisions and resolutions
of the courts be justified by the facts and the law.

The case of a public school teacher who was unjustly dismissed from the
service and forfeited all retirement benefits, after having served the public for 30
years as teacher and principal, has come to my attention. She is Agnes Raguinan,
principal of the Manaoag (Pangasinan) National High School.

What was her fault? Nothing. She just applied, in 1999, for the position of
principal of the high school when it became vacant as a result of the retirement of the
incumbent. Being a resident of Manaoag, Raguinan believed she had the edge for the
position because of Republic Act 8190 and Civil Service Qualification Standards
which grant priority to candidates for appointment who are residents of the municipality
or city where the school is located.

It turned out, however, that there were other aspirants to the position, among
them Rosalino T. Agpalo Jr. who was eventually appointed principal. Believing that the
selection process was not fair and transparent, Raguinan questioned the same before
the Civil Service Commission (CSC) field office in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. The mayor of
Manaoag also sought an injunction and later a declaration of nullity of the appointment
of Agpalo for violations of pertinent laws and rules.

Thinking that Raguinan was the root of his predicament, Agpalo hatched a plan
to strike back at her. She looked into her records and fished for evidence against her.
In 2001, notwithstanding that the selection process and appointment of the principal had
already been completed a year earlier, Juliana Laoag, schools division superintendent
of Pangasinan II, in the guise of verifying Raguinan’s application, asked the president of
Pangasinan State University for a certification on Raguinan’s alleged master’s degree in
education as reflected in her transcript of records at the Baguio Central University. The
Pangasinan State University replied that Raguinan was not a graduate of the university.
Agpalo and Laoag then filed a complaint with the CSC, accusing Raguinan of grave
misconduct, dishonesty, and falsification of public documents. The CSC dismissed her
and ordered the forfeiture of her retirement benefits.

Raguinan questioned her dismissal on the grounds of: (1) lack of jurisdiction of
the CSC to dismiss her; (2) no substantial evidence to prove that she was guilty of
dishonesty and falsification of public documents.

The CSC and the Court of Appeals admitted that the CSC had no jurisdiction to
hear and decide administrative cases against teachers. The authority is with an
investigation committee composed of a superintendent and supervisor of the
Department of Education where the school is located and a representative of the
teachers pursuant to Republic Act 4670, the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.
However, the CSC and Court of Appeals pointed out that Raguinan waived her right to
question the jurisdiction because she allegedly failed to assert such jurisdictional issue
before the CSC and was therefore guilty of estoppel by laches. Laches is a failure or
neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier.

The records of the case show, however, that when Raguinan filed her counter-
affidavit against the complaint before the CSC regional office at San Fernando,
Pampanga, she already questioned the CSC jurisdiction. While the case was on appeal
at the CSC, Raguinan also questioned its jurisdiction. Hence, it is clear, that Raguinan
had questioned the CSC jurisdiction within the prescribed period and had not been
negligent in asserting her right.

The unkindest cut is that when Raguinan appealed to the Supreme Court, her
appeal was dismissed with a one-page resolution: “Denied for lack of merit.”
When she inquired at the Supreme Court, she was not furnished an alleged en banc
resolution except the word “denied.” A check with the Internet revealed that there is no
publication of such resolution contrary to normal practice of publishing all resolutions
and decisions of the Supreme Court on the Internet.

What Raguinan saw was merely information that she should get her copy from
the complainant. Why from the complainant? Why not from the Supreme Court itself?
This is strange because the Constitution states: “No decision shall be rendered without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.” Was
that minute resolution really a decision of the Court en banc? Or was it the work of an
employee? Shouldn’t Chief Justice Reynato Puno order an investigation as this case
casts doubt on the disposition of justice in the highest court of the land?

Source: Cruz, Neal. Curious case of Agnes Raguinan, teacher. Philippine Daily
Inquirer. February 2, 2009. Date Accessed: September 24, 2010
 Just like any other professionals, teachers are given the opportunity to improve
themselves both as a private individual and as a professional. Any promotion or
recognition that a teacher receives is always and should always be anchored on the
legal qualifications required for the certain position.

The article stated on the previous pages, is a clear example of how a qualified
and competent teacher was denied of the right to apply for a higher position in favor of
someone else who was allegedly acted under the table. It was also a manifestation of
how that teacher was deprived of the due process of law. Her name is Ms. Agnes
Raguinan.

Ms. Agnes Raguinan faced two problems on the article: first, lack of due process
of her application for promotion and second, the doubt on the legality of the decision on
her appeal regarding her forfeited retirement benefit and promotion.

The succeeding statements will show the 4 laws involved in the case of Ms.
Agnes Raguinan and how these laws were violated.

1. Republic Act 4670 Magna Carta for Public School Teachers

It is stated in Article IV Section 8 of Magna Carta (. Safeguards
In Disciplinary Procedure. ) Every teacher shall enjoy equitable safeguards at
each stage of any disciplinary procedure and shall have:

a. the right to be informed, in writing, of the charges;

b. the right to full access to the evidence in the case;
c. the right to defend himself and to be defended by a representative of his
choice and/or by his organization, adequate time being given to the teacher for
the preparation of his defense; and
d. the right to appeal to clearly designated authorities.
 However, letter (b) seems to be violated in this situation. It
was clear that her appeal with Supreme Court was dismissed immediately with a 1
page resolution “Denied for lack of merit.” When she inquired about the resolution,
she was not given the copy of the resolution and when she even checked on the
internet (on the website of Supreme Court) there were no published resolution by
Supreme Court contrary to what they usually do. Thus, she was questioning if the
resolution was really valid or not.

2. Presidential Decree no. 807 Civil Service Commission

According to Article IX Section 30 Discipline General Provisions,
no officer or employer in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except
for cause as provided by law and after due process. This is contrary to the case of
Ms. Agnes Raguian whose retirement benefits was immediately dismissed and
forfeited.

3. Republic Act 8190 An Act granting priority to residents of the Barangay,

Municipality, or City where the school is located in the appointment or
assignment of classroom public school teachers

According to RA 8190 Section 1, In the appointment or assignment of

teachers to public elementary or secondary schools, priority shall be given to
bona fide residents of the barangay, municipality, city or province where the
school is located: Provided, That the teacher possesses all the minimum
qualifications for the position as required by law. With this, the application of Ms.
Raguinan for the position of principal in their secondary school when the position
becomes vacant is in accordance with the law. However, the selection process
did not become fair and transparent because even if she deserved the position
more, the other was given the position.
4. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

According to the 1987 Philippine Constitution Article III Bill of

Human Rights Section 7, The right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents
and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. And,
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. With
these two sections of our constitution, the violation is very clear that Ms. Agnes
Raguinan should have been given the proper and complete document pertaining
to her appeal at the Supreme Court. She has the right to gain full access to that
information since the case was involving her.

The abovementioned statements are significant for teachers

because we do not know what the future in store for us. As future teachers, we
might be encountering the same situation and if that happens, at least we know
already what to do and how to address the situation on the legal way.