DOH vs Camposano Administrative due process requires that, prior to imposing disciplinary sanctions, the disciplining authority must

make an independent assessment of the facts and the law. On its face, a decision imposing administrative sanctions must show the bases for its conclusions. While the investigation of a case may be delegated to and conducted by another body or group of officials, the disciplining authority must nevertheless weigh the evidence gathered and indicate the applicable law. In this manner, the respondents would be informed of the bases for the sanctions and thus be able to prepare their appeal intelligently. Such procedure is part of the sporting idea of fair play in a democracy. Facts: Respondents are former employees of the DOHNCR. Some concerned DOH-NCR employees filed a complaint before the DOH Resident Ombudsman against respondents arising out of an alleged anomalous purchase by DOH-NCR of 1, !! bottles of "errous Sulfate # ! mg. $ith %itamin & Comple' and "olic (cid capsules $orth )**!,!!!.!! from +umar )harmaceutical +aboratory. Issue: ,ON there has been a failure to comply $ith administrati-e due process Held: .he (dministrati-e Code of 1/01 -ests department secretaries $ith the authority to in-estigate and decide matters in-ol-ing disciplinary actions for officers and employees under the former2s 3urisdiction. 4156 .hus, the health secretary had disciplinary authority o-er respondents. .he Resident Ombudsman submitted an in-estigation report to the Secretary of Health recommending the filing of a formal administrati-e charge of Dishonesty and 7ra-e 8isconduct against respondents and their corespondents. .he Secretary of Health filed a formal charge against the them for 7ra-e 8isconduct, Dishonesty, and %iolation of R( *!1/..hen 9'ecuti-e Secretary Ruben D. .orres issued (dministrati-e Order No. #/0 creating an ad-hoc committee to in-estigate the administrati-e case filed against the DOH-NCR employees. .he said (O $as indorsed to the )C(7C. .he )C(7C too: o-er the in-estigation from the DOH. (fter the in-estigation, it issued a resolution disposing respondents ;guilty as charged< and so recommends to his 9'cellency )resident "idel %. Ramos that the penalty of dismissal from the go-ernment ser-ice be imposed thereon. )resident Ramos issued (O */! that D=S8=SS9D them from the ser-ice. >pon appeal, the C( re-ersed the decision on the ground that the )C(7C2s 3urisdiction o-er administrati-e complaints pertained only to presidential appointees. .hus, the Commission had no po$er to in-estigate the charges against respondents. 8oreo-er, in simply and completely relying on the )C(7C2s findings, the secretary of health failed to comply $ith administrati-e due process.

Note that being a presidential appointee, Dr. Rosalinda 8a3arais $as under the 3urisdiction of the )resident, in line $ith the principle that the 2po$er to remo-e is inherent in the po$er to appoint.4116 ,hile the Chief 9'ecuti-e directly dismissed her from the ser-ice, he nonetheless recogni?ed the health secretary2s disciplinary authority o-er respondents $hen he remanded the )C(7C2s findings against them for the secretary2s 2appropriate action. (s a matter of administrati-e procedure, a department secretary may utili?e other officials to in-estigate and report the facts from $hich a decision may be based.41/6 =n the present case, the secretary effecti-ely delegated the po$er to in-estigate to the )C(7C. Neither the )C(7C under 9O 1 1 nor the (d Hoc =n-estigating Committee created under (O #/0 had the po$er to impose any administrati-e sanctions directly. .heir authority $as limited to conducting in-estigations and preparing their findings and recommendations. .he po$er to impose sanctions belonged to the disciplining authority, $ho had to obser-e due process prior to imposing penalties. Due process in administrati-e proceedings re@uires compliance $ith the follo$ing cardinal principlesA ;1< the respondents2 right to a hearing, $hich includes the right to present one2s case and submit supporting e-idence, must be obser-edB ;#< the tribunal must consider the e-idence presentedB ;*< the decision must ha-e some basis to support itselfB ;C< there must be substantial e-idenceB ; < the decision must be rendered on the e-idence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affectedB ;5< in arri-ing at a decision, the tribunal must ha-e acted on its o$n consideration of the la$ and the facts of the contro-ersy and must not ha-e simply accepted the -ie$s of a subordinateB and ;1< the decision must be rendered in such manner that respondents $ould :no$ the reasons for it and the -arious issues in-ol-ed. .he C( correctly ruled that administrati-e due process had not been obser-ed in the present factual milieu. Noncompliance $ith the si'th re@uisite is e@ually e-ident from the health secretary2s Order dismissing the respondents thus guilt cannot be pronounced nor penalty imposed, unless due process is first obser-ed. .his is the essence of fairness and the rule of la$ in a democracy.

SAMALIO VS. COURT OF APP ALS FACTS: )etitioner (ugusto R. Samalio $as formerly an =ntelligence Officer of the &ureau of =mmigration and Deportation. On "ebruary #, 1//*, 8s. ,eng Sai Din, a Chinese national, arri-ed at the N(=( from Saipan. She $as holding a >ruguayan passport so an inspector suspected that her passport $as fa:e. 8s. ,eng $as brought to Samalio $ho $as the duty intelligence officer. =n e'change for her passport, 8s. ,eng paid E !! to Samalio. Ho$e-er, $hen 8s. ,eng chec:ed her passport later, she disco-ered that it did not bear an immigration arri-al stamp. Hence, she complained against Samalio. .he City )rosecutorFs Office of )asay then recommended the prosecution of Samalio for the crimes of Robbery and %iolation of Section C5 of the =mmigration +a$ before the Sandiganbayan. =n a later indorsement to the &ureau of =mmigration and Deportation ;&=D<, former N(=( 7eneral 8anager 7uillermo Cunanan enclosed a copy of the aforesaid City )rosecutorFs recommendation. Reacting, then &=D Commissioner Gafiro Respicio commenced an administrati-e case against Samalio for %iolation of CS8C No. C5, Rule #, Section 1, for dishonesty, oppression, misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduct, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, -iolation of reasonable office rules and regulations and conduct pre3udicial to the best interest of the ser-iceB and re@uired petitioner to submit his ans$er to the charges together $ith supporting statements and documents, and $hether or not he elects a formal in-estigation if his ans$er is not considered satisfactory. Samalio $as also pre-enti-ely suspended for a period of ninety ;/!< days. )etitioner submitted an ans$er denying the charges and e'pressly electing a formal in-estigation if such ans$er be not found to be satisfactory. (ttached thereto are the affida-its of his $itnesses. .he ans$er $as found to be unsatisfactory so the case $as set for formal hearing before the &oard of Discipline of &=D. .he case suffered se-eral postponed hearings due to the re@uests and non-a-ailability of the parties but mostly due to the absence of complainantFs $itnesses until Samalio $as allo$ed to file a motion to dismiss. Not$ithstanding, the case $as not dismissed. .he &oard of Discipline $as then reorgani?ed and this case $as assigned to a ne$ &oard presided by (tty. Hala$. Subpoenas $ere again sent and hearings $ere scheduled se-eral times before the ne$ &oard until Special )rosecutor 9dmund 8acaraig mo-ed that SamalioFs 8otion to Dismiss be denied and that the case be considered submitted for resolution based on the records. .he hearing officer also denied SamalioFs 8otion to Dismiss but granted the case to be set ane$.

"inally, &=D (cting Commissioner Ramon +i$ag, issued the decision finding Samalio guilty of the charges and dismissing him from ser-ice. "ormer Iustice Secretary .eofisto 7uingona, Ir. confirmed the penalty of dismissal. On appeal to the Ci-il Ser-ice Commission, the decisions of +i$ag and 7uingona $ere affirmed. =n a petition for re-ie$, the C( dismissed the petition of Samalio and subse@uently denied his motion for reconsideration. .he Sandiganbayan also con-icted Samalio for robbery. Samalio no$ contends that he $as not accorded due process because no $itness or e-idence $as presented against him, Section C1, Rule 1*! of the Rules of Court $as misinterpreted by the C( and there $as no hearing conducted on his case. ISSU : ,hether or not Samalio $as accorded due process H LD: SC !uled a"a#nst pet#t#one!. Samal#o $as acco!ded due p!ocess. T%e CSC dec#s#on and !esolut#on a!e suppo!ted &' su&stant#al ev#dence. T%e CSC( as $ell as t%e Sec!eta!' o) *ust#ce and t%e Comm#ss#one! o) t%e +ID( dec#ded t%e case on t%e &as#s o) t%e plead#n"s and pape!s su&m#tted &' t%e pa!t#es( and !el#ed on t%e !eco!ds o) t%e p!oceed#n"s ta,en. =n particular, the decision $as based on the criminal complaint filed by ,eng Sai Din against petitioner as $ell as the recommendation of the City )rosecutorFs Office that Samalio be prosecuted. .he CSC, as $ell as the Secretary of Iustice, also too: cogni?ance of the testimony of ,eng Sai Din in the Sandiganbayan and the fact of petitionerFs con-iction in that case. .hus, there $as ample e-idence $hich satisfied the burden of proof re@uired in administrati-e proceedings J substantial e-idence or that @uantum of rele-ant e-idence $hich a reasonable mind might accept as ade@uate to 3ustify a conclusion K to support the decision of the CSC. T%e CSC and t%e Sec!eta!' o) *ust#ce also d#d not e!! #n appl'#n" Sect#on -.( Rule /01 o) t%e Rev#sed Rules o) Cou!t( ot%e!$#se ,no$n as t%e 2!ule on )o!me! test#mon'(2 #n dec#d#n" pet#t#one!3s adm#n#st!at#ve case. .he pro-isions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to the rules of procedure of administrati-e bodies e'ercising @uasi3udicial po$ers, unless other$ise pro-ided by la$ or the rules of procedure of the administrati-e agency concerned. "or Section C1, Rule 1*! to apply, the follo$ing re@uisites must be satisfiedA ;a< the $itness is dead or unable to testifyB ;b< his testimony or deposition $as gi-en in a former case or proceeding, 3udicial or administrati-e, bet$een the same parties or those representing the same interestsB ;c< the former case in-ol-ed the same sub3ect as that in the present case,

although on different causes of actionB ;d< the issue testified to by the $itness in the former trial is the same issue in-ol-ed in the present case and ;e< the ad-erse party had an opportunity to cross-e'amine the $itness in the former case. =n this case, ,eng Sai Din $as unable to testify in the administrati-e proceedings before the &=D because she left the country or e-en before the administrati-e complaint against petitioner $as instituted. )etitioner does not deny that the testimony of ,eng Sai Din $as gi-en in the criminal case filed against him $ith the Sandiganbayan, $hich $as the basis for filing the administrati-e complaint. Hence, t%e #ssue test#)#ed to &' 4en" Sa# 5#n #n t%e Sand#"an&a'an $as t%e same #ssue #n t%e adm#n#st!at#ve case( t%at #s( $%et%e! pet#t#one! e6to!ted mone' )!om 4en" Sa# 5#n. Pet#t#one! also %ad t%e oppo!tun#t' to )ace and c!oss7e6am#ne %#s accuse! 4en" Sa# 5#n( and to de)end and v#nd#cate %#s cause &e)o!e t%e Sand#"an&a'an. Clearly, all the re@uisites for the proper application of the rule on former testimony, as embodied in Section C1, Rule 1*!, $ere satisfied. "urther, administrati-e bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of la$ and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of la$. (dministrati-e tribunals e'ercising @uasi-3udicial po$ers are unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural re@uirements, sub3ect to the obser-ance of fundamental and essential re@uirements of due process in 3usticiable cases presented before them. In adm#n#st!at#ve p!oceed#n"s( tec%n#cal !ules o) p!ocedu!e and ev#dence a!e not st!#ctl' appl#ed and adm#n#st!at#ve due p!ocess cannot &e )ull' e8uated $#t% due p!ocess #n #ts st!#ct 9ud#c#al sense. T%e Un#)o!m Rules o) P!ocedu!e #n t%e Conduct o) Adm#n#st!at#ve Invest#"at#ons #n t%e CSC $%#c% $e!e appl#ca&le to pet#t#one!3s case p!ov#ded t%at adm#n#st!at#ve #nvest#"at#ons s%all &e conducted $#t%out necessa!#l' ad%e!#n" to tec%n#cal !ules appl#ca&le #n 9ud#c#al p!oceed#n"s. .he >niform Rules further pro-ided that e-idence ha-ing materiality and rele-ance to the administrati-e case shall be accepted. Not only $as petitionerFs ob3ection to the application of Section C1, Rule 1*! a technicality that could be disregardedB the testimony of ,eng Sai Din in Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. 1051/ $as also material and rele-ant to the administrati-e case. Hence, the CSC $as correct in applying Section C1, Rule 1*! $hen it too: cogni?ance of the former testimony of ,eng Sai Din in the aforementioned criminal case. Pet#t#one!3s asse!t#on t%at t%e!e $as no %ea!#n" :t%at %e $as dep!#ved o) t%e oppo!tun#t' to &e %ea!d; #s l#,e$#se $#t%out me!#t. (pparently, petitionerFs concept of the opportunity to be heard is the opportunity to -entilate oneFs side in a formal hearing $here he can ha-e a face-to-face confrontation $ith the complainant. Ho$e-er, it is $ell-settled that( #n adm#n#st!at#ve cases(

t%e !e8u#!ement o) not#ce and %ea!#n" does not connote )ull adve!sa!#al p!oceed#n"s. Due p!ocess #n an adm#n#st!at#ve conte6t does not !e8u#!e t!#al7t'pe p!oceed#n"s s#m#la! to t%ose #n cou!ts o) 9ust#ce. ,here opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. ( formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. T%e !e8u#!ements a!e sat#s)#ed $%e!e t%e pa!t#es a!e a))o!ded )a#! and !easona&le oppo!tun#t' to e6pla#n t%e#! s#de o) t%e cont!ove!s' at %and. T%e standa!d o) due p!ocess t%at must &e met #n adm#n#st!at#ve t!#&unals allo$s a ce!ta#n de"!ee o) lat#tude as lon" as )a#!ness #s not #"no!ed. In ot%e! $o!ds( #t #s not le"all' o&9ect#ona&le )o! &e#n" v#olat#ve o) due p!ocess )o! an adm#n#st!at#ve a"enc' to !esolve a case &ased solel' on pos#t#on pape!s( a)#dav#ts o! documenta!' ev#dence su&m#tted &' t%e pa!t#es as a))#dav#ts o) $#tnesses ma' ta,e t%e place o) t%e#! d#!ect test#mon'. =n this case, pet#t#one! $as %ea!d t%!ou"% t%e va!#ous plead#n"s $%#c% %e )#led $#t% t%e +oa!d o) D#sc#pl#ne o) t%e +ID $%en %e )#led %#s ans$e! and t$o mot#ons to d#sm#ss( as $ell as ot%e! mot#ons and pape!s. He $as also a&le to pa!t#c#pate #n all sta"es o) t%e adm#n#st!at#ve p!oceed#n". He $as a&le to elevate %#s case to t%e Sec!eta!' o) *ust#ce and( su&se8uentl'( to t%e CSC &' $a' o) appeal. ,e ha-e consistently held that the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrati-e proceedings, the opportunity to e'plain oneFs side or the opportunity to see: a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. (nd any seeming defect in its obser-ance is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. Den#al o) due p!ocess cannot &e success)ull' #nvo,ed &' a pa!t' $%o %as %ad t%e oppo!tun#t' to &e %ea!d on %#s mot#on )o! !econs#de!at#on. )etitioner himself admits that he filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the &=D $hich $as confirmed by the Secretary of Iustice. He also admits that he filed a motion for reconsideration $ith the CSC. Hence, by his o$n admission, petitionerFs protestations that he had been depri-ed of due process must necessarily fail.

<otes: * main points on administrati-e due process sa case na itoA una yun sa e-idenceL$itness, #nd J yung paggamit ng pro-ision ng rules of court sa administrati-e proceedings ;pro-ision on former testimony particularly<, tapos *rd J hearingLopportunity to be heard<

yung na:a-bold yun yung main points ng SC sa decision nila, hindi :o :asi alam yung particular issue na gusto ni maFam i-discuss :aya lahat na lang ng may :inalaman sa due process nilagay :o hehe

.he petitioners, Iose S. Domingue?, =saias D. %idua, %icente 8. &arretto, Iose 8. Santiago, Iose Naseri- C. Dolo3an, Iuan "ernande? and Honorio Dilag, Ir., are members of the &oard of Directors of the Gambales == 9lectric Cooperati-e, =nc. ;G(89CO ==<. G(89CO == is an electric cooperati-e organi?ed and registered under )residential Decree No. #5/, as amended. N9( is a go-ernment o$ned and controlled corporation organi?ed under )residential Decree ;)D< No. #5/, as amended by )D No. 15C . Castille3os Consumers (ssociations, =nc. ;C(SCON(< is an organi?ation of electric consumers from the municipality of Castille3os, Gambales under the co-erage area of G(89CO ==. On No-ember #1, #!!#, C(SCON(, through its &oard of .rustees, filed a letter-complaint $ith N9( see:ing the remo-al of the petitioners for the follo$ing alleged offensesA a. illegal payment of 1*th 8onth )ay and 9'cessi-e 8id-Mear and Christmas &onus to petitionersB b. e'cessi-e e'penses of the &oard )resident, petitioner 8r. Iose S. Domingue?, charged to G(89CO )o$er Corporation ;G)C< and Central +u?on )o$er .ransmission De-elopment Corporation ;C+).DC< but ad-anced by G(89CO == and treated as recei-ables by the G(89CO == from aforesaid corporationsB c. anomalous contract $ith )hilreca 8anagement Corporation ;)8C< for G(89CO ==Fs Systems +oss Reduction )rogramB and d. o-erstaying as members of the &oard of Directors of G(89CO ==. .he letter-complaint $as essentially based on the N8anagement and "inancial (udit Report of Gambales == 9lectric Cooperati-e, =nc. for the period from !1 Ianuary 1/0/ to *! September 1//1N dated Iune 1//0 submitted by the 8anager of the Coop Systems (udit Di-ision to the N9(. (fter failure of the petitioners to file their position papers as agreed in the )reliminary 8andatory Conference, the N9( issued the assailed resolution. .he appellate court further declared that the petitioners ha-e not been depri-ed of due process in the administrati-e proceedings. CON.9N.=ON O" .H9 )(R.=9SA 1. .he petioners contended that they $ere denied due process as they $ere ne-er notified of the

=.R. <os. /.>?0@70>

Ma!c% /0( A11?

BAM+AL S II L CTRIC COOP RATIV ( I<C. :BAM CO II; +OARD OF DIR CTORS( <AM LC: *OS S. DOMI<=U B :PR SID <T;( ISAIAS 5. VIDUA :VIC 7PR SID <T;( VIC <T M. +ARR TO :S CR TARC;( *OS M. SA<TIA=O :TR ASUR R;( *OS <AS RIV C. DOLO*A<( *UA< F R<A<D B A<D HO<ORIO DILA=( *R. :M M+ RS;( )etitioners, -s. CASTILL *OS CO<SUM RS ASSOCIATIO<( I<C. :CASCO<A;( R PR S <T D +C DOMI<ADOR =ALLARDO( DAVID SPOSO( CRISTITA DORADO( D4I< CORPUB( . RO= R DOROPA<( *OS FI<A RAMIR B( F R<A<DO +O=<OT( *R.( CARM LITA D =UBMA<( MADIMO D LOS SA<TOS( AUR LIO FASTIDIO( +U <AV <TURA C LIS( RO+ RTO LADRILLO( CORABO< ACACA<( CARLITO CARR O<( DUARDO =ARCIA( MARCIAL VILORIA( FIL TO D L O< A<D MA<U L L A<D R( Respondents. ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -' BAM+AL S II L CTRIC COOP RATIV ( I<C. :BAM CO II; +OARD OF DIR CTORS( *OS S. DOMI<=U B :PR SID <T;( ISAIAS 5. VIDUA :VIC 7 PR SID <T;( VIC <T M. +ARR TO :S CR TARC;( *OS M. SA<TIA=O :TR ASUR R;( *OS <AS RIV C. DOLO*A<( *UA< F R<A<D B A<D HO<ORIO DILA=( *R. :M M+ RS;( )etitioners, -s. <ATIO<AL L CTRIFICATIO< ADMI<ISTRATIO< :< A;( < A7OFFIC OF TH ADMI<ISTRATIV COMMITT ( <=R. PAULI<O T. LOP B A<D CASTILL *OS CO<SUM RS ASSOCIATIO<( I<C. :CASCO<A;(Respondents. "(C.SA .he petitioners assailed the decision of the Court of (ppeals $hich upheld the the authority of public respondent N9( to super-ise electric cooperati-es such as G(89CO == and the po$er of N9( to ta:e pre-enti-e andLor disciplinary measures against an electric cooperati-eFs board of directors, officers or employees.

charges against them based on the Iuly #C, #!!* (udit Report ;#!!* (udit Report<. (llegedly, petitioners had been as:ed to respond only to the charges under the Iune # , 1//0 (udit Report ;1//0 (udit Report<.

obser-ance $ill, as a rule, in-alidate the administrati-e proceedings. =n the case at bar the petitioners $ere gi-en fair and ample opportunity to present their side $ith respect to C(SCON(Fs charges co-ered by the 1//0 (udit Report. Specifically, the charges of illegal payment of 1*th month pay and e'cessi-e bonusesLallo$ances claimed by petitioners in -iolation of a N9( 8emorandum and o-erstaying as members of the &oard of Directors $ere duly established by the e-idence on record. =t should be mentioned, in this regard, that the issue that petitioners had o-erstayed in office is not so much election-related as it is connected to the allegation that they had committed serious misconduct and deliberate negligence in office. ,H9R9"OR9, the instant case is hereby R98(ND9D to the Court of (ppeals for further proceedings in order to determine $hether the procedure outlined in Republic (ct No. /1*5, other$ise :no$n as the 9lectric )o$er =ndustry Reform (ct of #!!1, and its =mplementing Rules for the con-ersion of an electric cooperati-e into a stoc: cooperati-e under the Cooperati-e De-elopment (uthority had been complied $ith. .he Court of (ppeals is directed to raffle this case immediately upon receipt of this Decision and to proceed accordingly $ith all deliberate dispatch. .hereafter, it is directed to forth$ith transmit its findings to this Court for final ad3udication. No pronouncement as to costs.

#. N9( refutes petitionersF allegation that they $ere denied due process in the administrati-e proceedings, insisting that they $ere sent notices of the audit proceedings conducted by N9(.

=SS>9A,ON the petitioners $ere denied due process. H9+DA N9(Fs compliance $ith due process re@uirements should be e-aluated based on the standard set forth in Ang ibay v. !I", pertaining to the cardinal rights $hich must be obser-ed in proceedings before administrati-e tribunals, synthesi?ed in a subse@uent case as follo$sA .here are cardinal primary rights $hich must be respected e-en in proceedings of this character. .he first of these rights is the right to a hearing, $hich includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his o$n case and submit e-idence in support thereof. Not only must the party be gi-en an opportunity to present his case and to adduce e-idence tending to establish the rights $hich he asserts but the tribunal must consider the e-idence presented. ,hile the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity $hich cannot be disregarded, namely, that of ha-ing something to support its decision. Not only must there be some e-idence to support a finding or conclusion, but the e-idence must be substantial. .he decision must be rendered on the e-idence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. =n 7lobe .elecom, =nc. -. National .elecommunications Commission, the Court emphasi?ed the need for a hearing before any puniti-e measure may be underta:en by an administrati-e agency in the e'ercise of its @uasi3udicial functions. .he Court saidA Sec. #1 re@uires notice and hearing because fine is a sanction, regulatory and e-en puniti-e in character. =ndeed, the re@uirement is the essence of due process. Notice and hearing are the bul$ar: of administrati-e due process, the right to $hich is among the primary rights that must be respected e-en in administrati-e proceedings. .he right is guaranteed by the Constitution itself and does not need legislati-e enactment. .he statutory affirmation of the re@uirement ser-es merely to enhance the fundamental precept. .he right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its non-

Chromite and )hil?ea 8ining. Conse@uently, the same mining property of Gambales Chromite became the sub3ect of different agreements $ith t$o separate and distinct operators. 9arth 8inerals filed a petition for cancellation of the contract bet$een Gambales Chromite and )hil?ea 8ining to the &ureau of 8ines and 7eo-Sciences ;&87S<. 9arth 8inerals alleged that )hil?ea 8ining committed gra-e and serious -iolations of the latterFs contract because of failure to produce the agreed -olume of chromite oresB failure to pay ad -alorem ta'esB failure to put up assay buildings and offices, all resulting in the non-producti-ity and nonde-elopment of the mining area. )hil?ea 8ining filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that 9arth 8inerals is not the proper party in interest. &87S denied the petition, so )hil?ea ele-ated the case to 8inistry of Natural Resources ;8NR< to dismiss the appeal. 8NR on the other hand ordered &87S to in-estigate and found out that )hil?ea grossly -iolated the terms and conditions of the contract. &87S rendered a decision canceling the said mining contract. =SS>9A =s 9arth 8inerals the proper party to see: cancellation of the operating agreement bet$een )hil?ea 8ining and Gambales ChromiteQL R>+=N7A Mes. )etitioner 9arth 8inerals see:s the cancellation of the contract bet$een Gambales Chromite and )hil?ea 8ining, not as a party to the contract but because his rights are pre3udiced by the said contract. .he pre3udice and detriment to the rights and interest of petitioner stems from the continued e'istence of the contract bet$een Gambales Chromite and pri-ate respondent )hil?ea 8ining. >nless and until the contract bet$een Gambales Chromite and )hil?ea 8ining is cancelled, petitioner2s contract $ith the former in-ol-ing the same mining area cannot be in effect and it cannot perform its o$n obligations and deri-e benefits under its contract. .he Director of 8ines and 7eo-Sciences in his order denying )hil?ea 8ining2s motion to dismiss the petition for cancellation of the operating agreement bet$een )hil?ea 8ining and Gambales Chromite statedA "rom the documentary e-idence submitted by the petitioner, the +etter of =ntent and Operating (greement bet$een Gambales Chromite and 9arth 8inerals, it may be gleaned that, at least, there appears some color of right on the part of petitioner to re@uest for cancellationLrescission of the contract

G.R. No. 78569 February 11, 1991-194 SCRA 1 EARTH MINERALS EXPL RATI N, IN!., petitioner, vs. "EP#T$ EXE!#TI%E SE!RETAR$ !ATALIN MA!ARAIG, &R., FFI!E F THE PRESI"ENT, MALA!A'ANG, MANILA, (#REA# F MINES "IRE!T R (EN&AMIN A. G N)ALES, AN" PHIL)EA MINING AN" "E%. ! RP., respondents. This is a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary In !n"tion see#in$ the reversal of the de"ision 1 dated %!ne &', 19() and resol!tion * dated *ay +, 19(' of the ,ep!ty -.e"!tive Se"retary in /.P. Case 0o. 12&1. The de"ision and resol!tion set aside the orders of the *inister of 0at!ral Reso!r"es and ,ire"tor of *ines and 3eo4S"ien"es dated 0ovember ', 19(+ rendered in *0R Case 0o. )1+1 and %!ly &1, 19(+ rendered in *ines Sp. Case 0o. 541(1, respe"tively, that !pheld petitioner6s a"tion to "an"el7res"ind the minin$ "ontra"t dated September 11, 19(2 between 8ambales Chromite *inin$ Co., In". and private respondent Phil9ea *inin$ and ,evelopment Corporation.

"(C.SA On September 11, 1/0!, Gambales Chromite, o$ner of 1! patentable chromite mining claims, and )hil?ea, as operator and the herein respondent, entered into a OContract of De-elopment, 9'ploitation and )roducti-e OperationP on the ten ;1!< patentable mining claims. During the lifetime of such contract, 9arth 8inerals 9'ploration, =nc., the herein petitioner, submitted a +etter of =ntent on to Gambales Chromite $hereby the former proposed and the latter agreed to operate the same mining area sub3ect of the earlier agreement bet$een Gambales

dated September 11, 1/0! bet$een Gambales Chromite and )hil?ea 8ining. F#)t% Re8u#s#te : pa"e /1/; EIt #s su))#c#ent( %o$eve!( %at adm#n#st!at#ve )#nd#n"s o) )acts a!e suppo!ted &' ev#dence. Suc% )#nd#n"s $#ll not &e d#stu!&ed so lon" as t%e' a!e suppo!ted &' su&stant#al ev#dence( even #) not ove!$%elm#n" o! p!eponde!ant.F

hearing in -iolation of Sections 1 of the Rules of Court.

and 5 of Rule

Content#on o) Al&a!!ac#n:
(sserts that a hearing is not necessary because the special $rit of demolition had already been granted after se-eral hearings and the e'-parte motion $as merely for the enforcement or implementation of said $rit.

Rul#n":
(fter a perusal of the e-idence on record, the Office of the Court (dministrator ;OC(< ruled that complainants had no basis for their charges. =t noted that the $heels of 3ustice $ould run smoothly if the members of the 3udiciary $ho perform their functions conscientiously are not hampered by groundless and -e'atious charges. .he e-idence re-eals that the respondent 3udge notified complainants and conducted a hearing before the issuance of the $rit of e'ecution and special $rit of demolition.

+a!!edo7 Fuentes vs. Al&a!!ac#n -@> SCRA /A1

Facts:
&arredo are the defendants in the trial on the forcible entry cases. Iudgments $ere rendered in fa-or of the plaintiffs. .hus, complainants filed $ith the R.C of Da-ao City a petition for annulment of 3udgments under Rule C1 of the Re-ised Rules of Court. .he cases $ere raffled to R.C &ranch 1* and is pending resolution. On 8arch C, #!!C, Iudge (lbarracin issued a $rit of demolition despite the pendency of the case for annulment of 3udgments. &arredo re@uested respondent 3udge to a$ait the result of the annulment of 3udgments case. Ho$e-er, he still issued the @uestioned $rit of demolition. .his prompted complainants to file a petition for prohibition to restrain respondent 3udge from further acting on the sub3ect cases during the pendency of the case for annulment of 3udgments. During the pendency of the petition, respondent 3udge, after notice and hearing, issued three ;*< separate $rits of e'ecution and special $rits of demolition on (pril *!, #!!C relati-e to the sub3ect cases.

Content#on o) +a!!edo7Fuentes:
>rgent 9'-)arte 8otion. Complainants a-er that they $ere not ser-ed $ith a copy of the motion. Neither $as the motion set for

1. )etitioner is also estopped from @uestioning the 3urisdiction of the Ombudsman. ( perusal of the records sho$s that he participated in the proceedings by filing his counter-affida-it $ith supporting e-idence. Neither did he inform the Ombudsman of the e'istence of the other administrati-e complaint of $hich he is presumably a$are at the time the proceedings in the Ombudsman $ere on-going. =t $as only $hen the Ombudsman rendered an ad-erse decision that he disclosed the proceedings before the Due?on City Council and raised the issue of 3urisdiction. .hus, it has been held that participation in the administrati-e proceedings $ithout raising any ob3ection thereto bars the parties from raising any 3urisdictional infirmity after an ad-erse decision is rendered against them MA<U L D. LADI<A( SR vs. Om&udsman Facts:Dec. 1 , 1//0 ->rsal filed a complaint against petitioner 8anuel D. +a'ina, Sr. ;&arangay Chairman<and $as subse@uently charged $ith se'ual harassment before the Regional .rial Court of Due?on City. .hereafter >rsal filed $ith the Office of the Ombudsman a similar complaintaffida-it charging petitioner $ith gra-e misconduct. .he (dministrati-e (d3udication &ureau ;((&< of the Office of the Ombudsman e'onerated petitioner from the charge, dismissing the complaint for lac: of substantial e-idence. Ho$e-er, on # Iuly #!!1, upon re-ie$, and $ith the appro-al of the Ombudsman, petitioner $as found guilty of gra-e misconduct and meted the penalty of dismissal, $ith forfeiture of material benefits, per its 8emorandum Order.He $as dismissed from ser-ice. =ssueA 1.,hether the Office of the Ombudsman did not ha-e 3urisdiction o-er the administrati-e complaintB #.>rsalFs filing of the same administrati-e case before the Office of the Ombudsman and the City Council through the D=+7 $arranted the dismissal of both casesB and *. petitioner $as denied due process in the proceedings before the Ombudsman. RulingA #..he Ombudsman $as not a$are of the pending case before the Due?on City Council $hen the administrati-e complaint $as filed before it. .here $as no mention of such complaint either in the complaint-affida-it or in the counter-affida-it of petitioner. .hus, the Ombudsman, in compliance $ith its duty to act on all complaints against officers and employees of the go-ernment, too: cogni?ance of the case, made its in-estigation, and rendered its decision accordingly. *. )etitioner $as accorded the opportunity to be heard. He $as re@uired to ans$er the formal charge and gi-en a chance to present e-idence in his behalf. He $as not denied due process. 8ore importantly, the decision of the Ombudsman is $ell supported by substantial e-idence. )etition is D9N=9DA