Professional Documents
Culture Documents
- versus -
POLICE
DIRECTOR
REYNALDO
P.
VARILLA,
REGIONAL
DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,
POLICE OFFICE and ATTY.
RUFINO JEFFREY L. MANERE,
REGIONAL LEGAL AFFAIRS
SERVICE,
Respondents.
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
REYES,
DE CASTRO, and
BRION, JJ.
Promulgated:
Failure to file a Notice of Appeal with the NCRPO prior to his appeal to the
Appellate Board, as provided by Sec. 2, Rule III, MC # 91-007;
b. The Board erred to take cognizance of the case despite the fact that the
decision of the NCRPO dated 23 June 2000 had already become final and
executory.
c.
The Board erred in giving backwages despite the no work, no pay policy.
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for the reason that the said decision
had already become final and executory. The dispositive portion of DILG
Secretary Linas decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeals are hereby denied for lack of merit.
The assailed decisions of the Regional Appellate Board National Capital
Region, 4th Division, are hereby affirmed in toto.[12]
dated November 10, 2003 of the DILG Secretary Jose D. Lina, Jr. affirming the
nine (9) decisions of the Regional Appellate Board reinstating [Montoya, et al.] to
the police service is SET ASIDE. The decisions of the NCRPO Regional Director
dismissing petitioners-police officers Enrique C. Paulino, Rebecca P. Fernandez,
Donato L. Geda, Marlo S. Quiambao, Danilo De Leon Nuqui, Ruel C. Montoya,
Cecilia Z. de Leon, Alberto S. Mendoza and Rodolfo C. de Leon are hereby
AFFIRMED.[14]
II.
III.
IV.
V.
witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones rights; (3) a tribunal
vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4)
a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted
for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to
the parties affected.[18]
Hence, even if administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are
not strictly bound by procedural requirements, they are still bound by law and
equity to observe the fundamental requirements of due process. Notice to enable
the other party to be heard and to present evidence is not a mere technicality or a
trivial matter in any administrative or judicial proceedings. [19] In the application of
the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of
previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard.[20]
In the instant case, the Summary Dismissal Proceedings against Montoya
were flawed from the very beginning when these were conducted without due
notice to him. The NCR Regional Director, through Manere, never contested the
fact that the Hearing Officer proceeded with his investigation without giving notice
to Montoya. Without notice, Montoya was unable to attend the hearings, present
written or oral arguments, and submit evidence in his favor; he was completely
deprived of the opportunity to be heard on the administrative charges against him
and was irrefragably denied due process.
The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional
rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a partys right to
due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or
disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is
apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of
jurisdiction.[21] The rule must be equally true for quasi-judicial administrative
bodies, for the constitutional guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process is unqualified by what type of proceedings
(whether judicial or administrative) he stands to lose the same. Consequently, the
Decision dated 23 June 2000 of the NCR Regional Director dismissing Montoya
from service is void for having been rendered in violation of the latters due
process.
The foregoing finding of this Court precludes a ruling that Montoya delayed
appealing the NCR Regional Directors Decision of 23 June 2000, and the said
decision has already become final and executory.
The Court reviews the vital dates. Montoya was able to receive a copy of
the 23 June 2000 Decision of the NCR Regional Director dismissing him from
service on 20 July 2000. He erroneously filed his Petition for Review/Motion for
Reconsideration with the PNP Chief on 1 August 2000. The PNP denied
Montoyas Petition/Motion on 3 July 2002, two years after the filing thereof, citing
lack of jurisdiction, considering that the proper appellate body is the RABNCR. Thus, Montoya was only able to file his appeal of the decision of the NCR
Regional Director before the RAB-NCR on 2 September 2002.
Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975, otherwise known as the DILG Act of
1990, provides:
SEC. 45. Finality of Disciplinary Action. The disciplinary action
imposed upon a member of the PNP shall be final and executory: Provided, That a
disciplinary action imposed by the Regional Director or by the
PLEB involving demotion or dismissal from the service may be appealed to the
Regional Appellate Board within ten (10) days from receipt of the copy of the
notice of decision: Provided, further, That the disciplinary action imposed by the
Chief of the PNP involving demotion or dismissal may be appealed to the
National Appellate Board within ten (10) days from receipt thereof: Provided,
furthermore, That, the Regional or National Appellate Board, as the case may be,
shall decide the appeal within sixty (60) days from receipt of the notice of
appeal: Provided, finally, That failure of the Regional Appellate Board to act on
the appeal within said period shall render the decision final and executory without
prejudice, however, to the filing of an appeal by either party with the Secretary.
(Underscoring supplied.)
The Court also observes that it took the PNP two years to deny Montoyas
Petition/Motion before it, even though the PNP Chief manifestly did not have
jurisdiction over the same. While Montoya did err in first filing his appeal with the
PNP Chief, the prompt denial thereof would have spurred Montoya to re-file his
appeal sooner before the appropriate forum, the RAB-NCR.
As to the issue of whether the NCR Regional Director may appeal the
Decisions dated 11 December 2002 and 10 November 2003 of the RAB-NCR and
DILG Secretary Lina, respectively, the Court answers in the negative.
Prior to Dacoycoy, case law held that dismissal of the charges against or
exoneration of respondents in administrative disciplinary proceedings is final and
not subject to appeal even by the government. On 29 April 1999, the Court
promulgated its Decision in Dacoycoy, in which it made the following
pronouncements:
At this point, we have necessarily to resolve the question of the party
adversely affected who may take an appeal from an adverse decision of the
appellate court in an administrative civil service disciplinary case. There is no
question that respondent Dacoycoy may appeal to the Court of Appeals from the
decision of the Civil Service Commission adverse to him. He was the respondent
official meted out the penalty of dismissal from the service. On appeal to the
Court of Appeals, the court required the petitioner therein, herein respondent
Dacoycoy, to implead the Civil Service Commission as public respondent as the
government agency tasked with the duty to enforce the constitutional and
statutory provisions on the civil service.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Civil
Service Commission and held respondent not guilty of nepotism. Who now may
appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court? Certainly not
the respondent, who was declared not guilty of the charge. Nor the complainant
George P. Suan, who was merely a witness for the government. Consequently,
the Civil Service Commission has become the party adversely affected by
such ruling, which seriously prejudices the civil service system. Hence, as an
aggrieved party, it may appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the
Supreme Court. By this ruling, we now expressly abandon and overrule extant
jurisprudence that the phrase party adversely affected by the decision refers to
the government employee against whom the administrative case is filed for the
purpose of disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension, demotion
in rank or salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office and not included are
cases where the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty (30) days
or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days salary or when the respondent is
exonerated of the charges, there is no occasion for appeal. In other words, we
overrule prior decisions holding that the Civil Service Law does not
contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees from
administrative
charges enunciated
in Paredes
v.
Civil
Service
Commission; Mendez v. Civil Service Commission; Magpale v. Civil Service
Commission; Navarro v. Civil Service Commission and Export Processing Zone
Authority and more recently Del Castillo v. Civil Service Commission.
[25]
(Emphasis ours.)
While Dacoycoy established that the government could appeal the decision
exonerating respondent public officer or employee from administrative charges, it
wasMamauag which specifically required that the government party appealing
must be the one prosecuting the case and not the disciplining authority or tribunal
which heard the administrative case.
In the present case, Montoya appealed to the RAB-NCR the 23 June
2000 Decision of the NCR Regional Director dismissing him from service. The
RAB-NCR, in its 11 December 2002 Decision, reversed the appealed decision of
the NCR Regional Director and ordered Montoyas reinstatement. The NCR
Regional Director then appealed the decision of the RAB-NCR to the Office of the
DILG Secretary. DILG Secretary Lina, in his Decision dated 10 November 2003,
affirmed the decision of the RAB-NCR. Once more, the NCR Regional Director
filed an appeal with the CSC, where he was able to secure a favorable ruling.
It is beyond dispute that the NCR Regional Director was acting as the
investigating and disciplining authority when he rendered his Decision dated 23
June 2000dismissing Montoya from the service. The pronouncement
in Mamauag, that the disciplining authority or tribunal which heard the case and
imposed the penalty of demotion or dismissal should not be the one appealing the
subsequent exoneration of the public officer or employee, squarely applies to the
NCR Regional Director.
In Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection
Group,[28] the Court explained:
It is a well-known doctrine that a judge should detach himself from cases
where his decision is appealed to a higher court for review. The raison d'etre for
such doctrine is the fact that a judge is not an active combatant in such proceeding
and must leave the opposing parties to contend their individual positions and the
appellate court to decide the issues without his active participation. When a judge
actively participates in the appeal of his judgment, he, in a way, ceases to be
judicial and has become adversarial instead.
The court or the quasi-judicial agency must be detached and impartial, not
only when hearing and resolving the case before it, but even when its judgment is
brought on appeal before a higher court. The judge of a court or the officer of a
quasi-judicial agency must keep in mind that he is an adjudicator who must settle
the controversies between parties in accordance with the evidence and the
applicable laws, regulations, and/or jurisprudence. His judgment should already
clearly and completely state his findings of fact and law. There must be no more
need for him to justify further his judgment when it is appealed before appellate
courts. When the court judge or the quasi-judicial officer intervenes as a party in
the appealed case, he inevitably forsakes his detachment and impartiality, and his
interest in the case becomes personal since his objective now is no longer only to
settle the controversy between the original parties (which he had already
accomplished by rendering his judgment), but more significantly, to refute the
appellants assignment of errors, defend his judgment, and prevent it from being
overturned on appeal.
Before finally writing finis to this case, the Court still finds it necessary to
address the remaining issue on the supposed failure of the NCR Regional Director
to exhaust administrative remedies. Montoya argues that the NCR Regional
Director failed to exhaust administrative remedies when he appealed the 10
November 2003Decision of DILG Secretary Lina directly to the CSC, without first
filing an appeal with the Office of the President.
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party
is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should
have availed himself of all the means of administrative processes afforded
him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted
to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a
matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted
first before courts judicial power can be sought. [30] The administrative agency
concerned is in the best position to correct any previous error committed in its
forum.[31]
Montoyas reliance on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
is misplaced, for said doctrine does not find application in the instant case. The
doctrine intends to preclude premature resort from a quasi-judicial administrative
body to the court. Such is not the situation in this case. Montoya is questioning
the supposed premature resort of the NCR Regional Director from the decision of
the DILG Secretary to the CSC, instead of to the Office of the President;
obviously, he is challenging the resort from one administrative body to another.
the Commission, the same may initially be appealed to the department (i.e.,
DILG) and finally to the Commission (i.e., CSC).[36]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review
on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated 9 August 2007 and Resolution
dated 18 October 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 96022
are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The
Philippine
National
Police
is ORDERED to reinstate petitioner PO2 Ruel C. Montoya to the police service
without loss of seniority rights and with full payment of his salaries and backwages
covering the period effective from the time of his dismissal from the service up to
his reinstatement.
SO ORDERED.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and
Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring; rollo, pp. 90-106.
Rollo, pp. 108-109.
Id. at 40.
Annex D.
Rollo, pp. 45-51.
RAB Case No. 2002-0088 SD; rollo, pp. 60-65.
Id. at 65.
SPO2 Enrique C. Paulino, SPO1 Rebecca P. Fernandez, SPO1 Donato L. Geda, PO2 Marlo S. Quiambao,
PO3 Danilo de Leon Nuqui, SPO1 Cecilia Z. de Leon, SPO1 Alberto S. Mendoza and SPO1 Rodolfo C. de
Leon.
Id.
The Order addressed all the appealed RAB-NCR decisions, but the Court shall only present herein the
rulings particular to Montoyas case.
An Act Establishing the Philippine National Police Under a Reorganized Department of the Interior and
Local Government, and for Other Purposes; RA 6975 was later on amended by RA 8551, approved on 25
February 1998 and published in newspapers on 5 March 1998.
CA rollo, p. 316.
366 Phil. 86 (1999).
Rollo, p. 105.
Montoyas co-petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 96022 have a separate pending petition with this Court,
docketed as G.R. No. 180063.
Civil Service Commission v. Lucas, 361 Phil. 486, 491 (1999).
Westmont Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samaniego, G.R. Nos. 146653-54, 20 February 2006, 482 SCRA 611,
619.
Fabella v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 940, 952-953 (1997).
National Power Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 339 Phil. 89, 107 (1997);
citing Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. L-80485, 11 November
1988, 167 SCRA 294, 301.
Vda. de Emnas v. Emnas, 184 Phil. 419, 424 (1980).
State Prosecutors v. Muro, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-876, 19 September 1994, 236 SCRA 505, 522-523;
see also Paulin v. Gimenez, G.R. No. 103323, 21 January 1993, 217 SCRA 386, 392.
Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil. 820, 828 (1996).
Laresma v. Abellana, G.R. No. 140973, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRA 156, 169.
People v. Bocar, G.R. No. L-27935, 16 August 1985, 138 SCRA 166, 171.
Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy, supra note 13 at 104-105.
G.R. No. 149999, 12 August 2005, 466 SCRA 624, 641-642.
378 Phil. 466, 483-484 (1999).
G.R. No. 169982, 23 November 2007, 538 SCRA 534, 549.
338 Phil. 162, 171 (1997).
Paat v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 146, 152-153 (1997).
Id.
The PNP, as a bureau, is now a part of the reorganized DILG. (Cabada v. Alunan III, 329 Phil. 669
[1996].)
G.R. No. 139658, 21 June 2005, 460 SCRA 399.
Section 6, Article XVI of the Constitution provides:
Section 6. The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope and
civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The authority of
local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.
Mendoza v. NAPOLCOM, supra note 33.
Cabada v. Alunan, III, supra note 32.
Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
WINSTON F. GARCIA, in his capacity as
President and General Manager of GSIS,
Petitioner,
- versus -
Promulgated:
August 10, 2010
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before the Court are two consolidated petitions filed by Winston F. Garcia
(petitioner) in his capacity as President and General Manager of the Government
Despite their urgent motions, the CSC failed to resolve respondents motions
to lift preventive suspension order and to transfer the case from the GSIS to the
CSC.
On October 10, 2002, respondents filed with the CA a special civil action
for certiotari and prohibition with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
[13]
The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 73170. Respondents sought the
annulment and setting aside of petitioners order directing the former to submit to
the jurisdiction of the committee created to hear and investigate the administrative
case filed against them. They likewise prayed that petitioner (and the committee)
be prohibited from conducting the scheduled hearing and from taking any action
on the aforesaid administrative case against respondents.
On January 2, 2003, the CA rendered a decision [14] in favor of respondents,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Public respondents
are hereby PERPETUALLY RESTRAINED from hearing and investigating the
administrative case against petitioners, without prejudice to pursuing the same
with the Civil Service Commission or any other agency of government as may be
allowed for (sic) by law.
SO ORDERED.[15]
The CA treated the petition as one raising an issue of gnawing fear, and thus
agreed with respondents that the investigation be made not by the GSIS but by the
CSC to ensure that the hearing is conducted before an impartial and disinterested
tribunal.
Aggrieved, petitioner comes before the Court in this petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ABUSED THEIR
AUTHORITY AND HAVE BEEN PARTIAL IN REGARD TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS; AND IN
PERPETUALLY RESTRAINING THE PETITIONERS FROM HEARING AND
INVESTIGATING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASES FILED AGAINST THE
RESPONDENTS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE TOTALLY
UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE
PETITIONERS ARE PARTIAL AGAINST THEM.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE AND APPLY THE PRINCIPLE OF
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND THE RULE ON
NON FORUM SHOPPING IN PERPETUALLY RESTRAINING THE
PETITIONERS
FROM
HEARING
AND
INVESTIGATING
THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS.
III.
2.
SO ORDERED.[23]
The CA declared null and void respondents formal charges for lack of the
requisite preliminary investigation. In view thereof, the CA disagreed with the CSC
that the question on the propriety of the preventive suspension order had become
moot and academic. Rather, it concluded that the same is likewise void having
emanated from the void formal charges. Consequently, the CA found that
respondents were entitled to back salaries during the time of their illegal preventive
suspension.
Hence, the present petition raising the following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS WERE FULLY ACCORDED THE
REQUISITE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, WERE IN FACT HEARD AND
BEING HEARD, AND WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IS AN
ESSENTIAL REQUISITE TO THE CONDUCT OF ADJUDICATION.
II.
WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS WAIVED
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.
THEIR
III.
WHETHER PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
INDICTMENTS IN FLAGRANTI, AS HERE.
IS
RIGHT
TO
REQUIRED
IN
IV.
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS LACKED
JURISDICTION, AS THE ALLEGED LACK OF PRELIMNARY
INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE GSIS AND,
THEREAFTER, BEFORE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, UNDER THE
PRINCIPLE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; THE
GSIS HAVING ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS OF THE
RESPONDENTS, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS.
V.
WHETHER THE ALLEGED LACK OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS
A NON-ISSUE.
VI.
WHETHER THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDERS ISSUED AGAINST
RESPONDENTS MOLINA AND VELASCO ARE VALID, WELL-FOUNDED
AND DULY RECOGNIZED BY LAW.
VII.
WHETHER PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION IS A PENALTY AND, THUS, MAY
NOT BE IMPOSED WITHOUT BEING PRECEDED BY A HEARING.
VIII.
The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service lays down the
procedure to be observed in issuing a formal charge against an erring employee, to
wit:
First, the complaint. A complaint against a civil service official or
employee shall not be given due course unless it is in writing and subscribed and
sworn to by the complainant. However, in cases initiated by the proper
disciplining authority, the complaint need not be under oath. [27] Except when
otherwise provided for by law, an administrative complaint may be filed at
anytime with the Commission, proper heads of departments, agencies, provinces,
cities, municipalities and other instrumentalities.[28]
Second, the Counter-Affidavit/Comment. Upon receipt of a complaint
which is sufficient in form and substance, the disciplining authority shall require
the person complained of to submit Counter-Affidavit/Comment under oath
within three days from receipt.[29]
Third, Preliminary Investigation. A Preliminary investigation involves the
ex parte examination of records and documents submitted by the complainant and
the person complained of, as well as documents readily available from other
government offices. During said investigation, the parties are given the
opportunity to submit affidavits and counter-affidavits. Failure of the person
complained of to submit his counter-affidavit shall be considered as a waiver
thereof.[30]
Fourth, Investigation Report. Within five (5) days from the termination of
the preliminary investigation, the investigating officer shall submit the
investigation report and the complete records of the case to the disciplining
authority.[31]
Fifth, Formal Charge. If a prima facie case is established during the
investigation, a formal charge shall be issued by the disciplining authority. A
formal investigation shall follow. In the absence of a prima facie case, the
complaint shall be dismissed.[32]
Indeed, the CSC Rules does not specifically provide that a formal charge
without the requisite preliminary investigation is null and void. However, as
clearly outlined above, upon receipt of a complaint which is sufficient in form and
substance, the disciplining authority shall require the person complained of to
submit a Counter-Affidavit/Comment under oath within three days from receipt.
The use of the word shall quite obviously indicates that it is mandatory for the
disciplining authority to conduct a preliminary investigation or at least respondent
should be given the opportunity to comment and explain his side. As can be
gleaned from the procedure set forth above, this is done prior to the issuance of the
formal charge and the comment required therein is different from the answer that
may later be filed by respondents. Contrary to petitioners claim, no exception is
provided for in the CSC Rules. Not even an indictment in flagranti as claimed by
petitioner.
This is true even if the complainant is the disciplining authority himself, as
in the present case. To comply with such requirement, he could have issued a
memorandum requiring respondents to explain why no disciplinary action should
be taken against them instead of immediately issuing formal charges. With
respondents comments, petitioner would have properly evaluated both sides of the
controversy before making a conclusion that there was a prima facie case against
respondents, leading to the issuance of the questioned formal charges. It is
noteworthy that the very acts subject of the administrative cases stemmed from an
event that took place the day before the formal charges were issued. It appears,
therefore, that the formal charges were issued after the sole determination by the
petitioner as the disciplining authority that there was a prima facie case against
respondents.
To condone this would give the disciplining authority an unrestricted power
to judge by himself the nature of the act complained of as well as the gravity of the
charges. We, therefore, conclude that respondents were denied due process of law.
Not even the fact that the charges against them are serious and evidence of their
guilt is in the opinion of their superior strong can compensate for the
procedural shortcut undertaken by petitioner which is evident in the record of this
case.[34]The filing by petitioner of formal charges against the respondents without
complying with the mandated preliminary investigation or at least give the
respondents the opportunity to comment violated the latter's right to due process.
Hence, the formal charges are void ab initio and may be assailed directly or
indirectly at anytime.[35]
The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional
rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a party's right to
due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or
disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is
apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of
jurisdiction. This rule is equally true in quasi-judicial and administrative
proceedings, for the constitutional guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process is unqualified by the type of proceedings
(whether judicial or administrative) where he stands to lose the same.[36]
Although administrative procedural rules are less stringent and often applied
more liberally, administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and
fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process in
investigations and hearings.[37] In particular, due process in administrative
proceedings has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or
constructive notice to the institution of proceedings which may affect a
respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the
assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to
defend one's rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so
constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of
honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is
supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing
or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.[38]
Petitioner contends that respondents waived their right to preliminary
investigation as they failed to raise it before the GSIS.
Again, we do not agree.
It is well-settled that a decision rendered without due process is void ab
initio and may be attacked at anytime directly or collaterally by means of a
separate action, or by resisting such decision in any action or proceeding where it
is invoked.[39] Moreover, while respondents failed to raise before the GSIS the lack
of preliminary investigation, records show that in their Urgent Motion to Resolve
(their Motion to Lift Preventive Suspension Order) filed with the CSC, respondents
questioned the validity of their preventive suspension and the formal charges
against them for lack of preliminary investigation.[40] There is, thus, no waiver to
speak of.
In the procedure adopted by petitioner, respondents were preventively
suspended in the same formal charges issued by the former without the latter
knowing that there were pending administrative cases against them. It is true
that prior notice and hearing are not required in the issuance of a preventive
suspension order.[41]However, considering that respondents were preventively
suspended in the same formal charges that we now declare null and void, then their
preventive suspension is likewise null and void.
Lastly, the CA committed no reversible error in ordering the payment of
back salaries during the period of respondents preventive suspension. As the
administrative proceedings involved in this case are void, no delinquency or
misconduct may be imputed to respondents and the preventive suspension meted
them is baseless. Consequently, respondents should be awarded their salaries
during the period of their unjustified suspension.[42] In granting their back salaries,
we are simply repairing the damage that was unduly caused respondents, and
unless we can turn back the hands of time, we can do so only by restoring to them
that which is physically feasible to do under the circumstances. [43] The principle of
no work, no pay does not apply where the employee himself was unlawfully
forced out of job.[44]
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
On Official Leave
Penned by Associate Justice Eubolo G. Verzola, with Associate Justices Candido V. Rivera and Amelita
G. Tolentino, concurring; rollo (G.R. No. 157383), pp. 37-40.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Eubolo G. Verzola, with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Amelita G.
Tolentino, concurring; id. at 41.
[3]
Penned by Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine, with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Vicente S.E.
Veloso, concurring; rollo (G.R. No. 174137), pp. 69-78.
[4]
Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon, with Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Vicente
S.E. Veloso, concurring; id. at 80-83.
[5]
Id. at 85-89.
[6]
Id. at 85-86.
[7]
Id. at 87-88.
[8]
Id. at 86 and 89.
[9]
Id. at 90-101.
[10]
Id. at 102-114.
[11]
Id. at 119-122.
[12]
Embodied in two Orders dated July 30, 2002 and September 24, 2002; id. at 145 and 161.
[13]
Id. at 127-144.
[14]
Supra note 1.
[15]
Rollo (G.R. No. 157383), p. 40.
[16]
Id. at 127-128.
[17]
Id. at 42-51.
[18]
Id. at 51.
[19]
Id. at 48-50.
[20]
Id. at 50.
[21]
Rollo (G.R. No. 174137) pp. 232-248.
[22]
Supra Note 3.
[23]
Rollo (G.R. No. 174137) pp. 77-78.
[24]
Id. at 509-512.
[25]
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS, G.R. No.
170132, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 622, 629-630.
[26]
Id. at 637.
[27]
Section 8, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[28]
Section 9, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[29]
Section 11, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[30]
Section 12, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[31]
Section 14, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[32]
Section 15, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[1]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
Montoya v. Varilla, G.R. No. 180146, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 831, 843.
Id. at 841; Civil Service Commission v. Lucas, 361 Phil 486, 491 (1999).
Montoya v. Varilla, supra ar 841-842; Fabella v. CA, 346 Phil 940, 952-953 (1997).
Engr. Rubio, Jr. v. Hon. Paras, supra at 643.
Rollo (G.R. No. 174137), p. 117.
Carabeo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 178000 and 178003, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 394.
Fabella v. CA, supra at 958.
Neeland v. Villanueva, Jr., 416 Phil 580, 594.
Id. at 596.