THE Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a lawyer of the Commission on Higher Education for gross misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

In an en banc decision, the high tribunal set aside the Sept. 15, 2003 decision of the Court of Appeals finding Felina Dasig, officer-in-charge of the Legal Affairs Service of CHED, merely liable for simple misconduct.

The Court instead reinstated and modified the Nov. 29, 1999 resolution of the Civil Service Commission upholding the CHED order dismissing Dasig from service.

Dasig is chief education program specialist of the Standards Development Division, Office of Programs and Standards, of the CHED.

While the case was pending before the appellate court, the SC came out with a resolution on April 1, 2003 and ordered Dasig disbarred after several officers of CHED filed an administrative case against her for gross misconduct, in violation of the Attorney’s Oath “for having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the CHED.”

“The Court of Appeals committed a monumental blunder when it arrived at findings of fact different from those of the Court in the disbarment case. It is inexplicable why the appellate court would propound and insist on its ‘moonlighting’ conclusion when even Dasig herself had denied offering her services to anyone in the first place,” the high court said.

Although the administrative case against Dasig is different from the disbarment case, the parties are different and trials were conducted separately, the Court said “there can only be one truth: Dasig had attempted to extort money from the students.”

In a memorandum dated Oct. 9, 1998, the director of the LAS brought to the attention of the CHED several complaints on the alleged anomalous activities of Dasig during her stint as the officer-in-charge of the LAS. Rey E. Requejo