Case Digest - Admin Law

Salumbides v.
Ombudsman
G.R. No. 180917, April 23, 2010
J. Carpio-Morales
Facts:
Salumbides and Glenda were appointed as Municipal Legal Officer/Administrator and

Municipal Budget Officer, respectively, of Tagkawayan, Quezon. On May 13, 2002,
herein respondents Ricardo Agon, Ramon Villasanta, Elmer Dizon, Salvador Adul and
Agnes Fabian, all members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tagkawayan, filed with the
Office of the Ombudsman a complaint against Salumbides and Glenda (hereafter
petitioners), the mayor, Coleta, Jason and Aquino.
The administrative aspect of the case charged petitioners et al. with Dishonesty, Grave
Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service, and violation of the Commission on Audit (COA) Rules and the Local
Government Code. The Office of the Ombudsman denied the prayer to place petitioners
et al. under preventive suspension pending investigation. By Order dated February 1,
2005, approved on April 11, 2005, it denied the motion for reconsideration but dropped
the mayor and Coleta, both elective officials, as respondents in the administrative case,
the 2004 elections having mooted the case. The Office of the Ombudsman approved the
September 9, 2005 Memorandum absolving Jason and Aquino and finding petitioners
guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty.
Issue: Is the doctrine of condonation applicable in this case?
Held:
No. The Court declined to extend the settled doctrine of condonation to cover appointive
officials who were administratively charged along with the reelected official/appointing
authority with infractions allegedly committed during their preceding term.
The Court ruled that the doctrine of condonation cannot to be extended to reappointed
coterminous employees like petitioners as in their case, there is neither subversion of the
sovereign will nor disenfranchisement of the electorate. “Moreover, the unwarranted
expansion of the Pascual doctrine would set a dangerous precedent as it would, as
respondents posit, provide civil servants, particularly local government, with blanket
immunity from administrative liability that would spawn and breed abuse of the
bureaucracy,” added the Court.
PAGCOR v. De Guzman Held:
G.R. No. 208261, December 08, 2014 Yes.
J. Perlas-Bernabe The power to remove or discipline is lodged in the same authority on which the power
to appoint is vested.
Facts:
 Section 16 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
On December 7, 2001, PAGCOR hired De Guzman as an Evaluation Specialist and (URACCS) requires in administrative disciplinary proceedings that the
assigned her to the Property and Procurement Department. At the time of her disciplinary authority furnish the employee concerned a formal charge
employment, De Guzman accomplished a Personal History Statement (PHS), which specifying the latter’s acts and/or omissions complained of, and directing him
requires an attestation from the employee that the information stated therein are true and to answer the charges stated therein.
correct to the best of her knowledge and belief, and agreed that any misdeclaration or
omission would be sufficient ground for denial of her application, clearance, or cause for  Adhering to the well-settled principle that the power to remove or to discipline
separation. In her PHS, De Guzman indicated that she had no relatives currently
is lodged in the same authority on which the power to appoint is vested.
employed with PAGCOR and did not disclose that she has a sister named Adelina P. See
(Adelina). In 2008, De Guzman updated her PHS, reiterating her statement that she had
 Simply put, PAGCOR is the proper disciplinary authority of PAGCOR
no relatives working with PAGCOR, but this time, listed Adelina as one of her siblings.
employees, and as such, formal charges against its employees in administrative
It was later found out, however, that De Guzman had a nephew named Gerwin P. See, her disciplinary proceedings should emanate from it, through its Board of
sister Adelina’s son, who worked in PAGCOR from July 26, 2001 until his resignation on Directors, as in this case.
September 22, 2005.
Upon discovery of De Guzman’s alleged deceit, Atty. Albert R. Sordan (Atty. Sordan) of Formal Charge and Assailed Memorandum must be issued by PAGCOR, through its
PAGCOR’s Corporate Investigation Unit sent De Guzman a Notice of Charges dated board of directors. Otherwise, such formal charge and assailed memorandum are
August 12, 2010 (Formal Charge) charging her of “Deception or Fraud in Securing considered null and void.
Employee’s Appointment or Promotion” and directed her to show cause why she should
 However, in this instance, the Formal Charge, as well as the Assailed
not be subjected to any disciplinary action. In her reply-letter dated August 16, 2010, De
Memorandum, did not come from PAGCOR through its Board of Directors, but
Guzman, among other things, maintained that she updated her PHS with all honesty and
merely from Atty. Sordan and HRDD-OIC Bailey, respectively. Records are
to the best of her knowledge.
bereft of any showing that the latter were authorized by the PAGCOR Board of
In a Memorandum dated November 5, 2010 (Assailed Memorandum) signed by Michael Directors to issue the aforesaid documents. As such, the Formal Charge and the
J. Bailey, Officer-In-Charge of PAGCOR’s Human Resource and Development Assailed Memorandum are null and void. Consequently, De Guzman’s removal
Department (HRDD-OIC Bailey), De Guzman was found administratively liable for the from PAGCOR without a valid formal charge was done in violation of her right
charges filed against her and was, thus, dismissed. to due process, warranting the dismissal of the instant administrative
disciplinary case against her, without prejudice to its re-filing, pursuant to
De Guzman received a copy of the Assailed Memorandum on November 6, 2010 and Section 48 of the URACCS.
appealed her dismissal before the CSC on December 10, 2010. PAGCOR opposed the
appeal for having been belatedly filed.
CSC and CA – ruled in favor of De Guzman and dismissed the administrative

disciplinary case against her, without prejudice to its re-filing. The CSC and CA found
that the Formal Charge and the Assailed Memorandum were not issued by the proper
disciplinary authority – PAGCOR in this case – but merely by its employees, namely
Atty. Sordan and HRDD-OIC Bailey, respectively. As such, no Formal Charge was
validly filed against De Guzman, resulting in the violation of her right to due process.
Issue: whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the CSC’s dismissal of the administrative
disciplinary case against De Guzman on the ground that she was deprived of her right to
due process.

Case Digest - Admin Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Admin Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Admin Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salumbides v.

G.R. No. 180917, April 23, 2010

Salumbides and Glenda were appointed as Municipal Legal Officer/Administrator and

Issue: Is the doctrine of condonation applicable in this case?

G.R. No. 208261, December 08, 2014 Yes.

CSC and CA – ruled in favor of De Guzman and dismissed the administrative

You might also like