ANG TIBAY VS CIR regulates the relations between them, subject to, and in

40 OG 7TH SUPP 129 accordance with, the provisions of CA 103.

FACTS:
SC had the occasion to point out that the CIR is not
(The case was in Spanish) narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and
equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard
Ang Tibay was a manufacturer of rubber slippers. There
to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by
was a shortage of leather soles, and it was necessary to
any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its
temporarily lay off members of the National Labor Union.
mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable.
According to the Union however, this was merely a
The fact, however, that the CIR may be said to be free
scheme to systematically terminate the employees from
from rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not
work, and that the shortage of soles is unsupported. It
mean that it can in justiciable cases coming before it,
claims that Ang Tibay is guilty of unjust labor practice
entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential
because the owner, Teodoro, is discriminating against the
requirements of due process in trials and investigations of
National Labor Union, and unjustly favoring the National
an administrative character. There are cardinal primary
Workers Brotherhood, which was allegedly sympathetic to
rights which must be respected even in proceedings of
the employer.
this character:
The Court of Industrial Relation decided the case and
(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to
elevated it to the Supreme Court, but a motion for new
present one's cause and submit evidence in support
trial was raised by the NLU.
thereof;
Ang Tibay filed a motion for opposing the said motion. The
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
motion for new trial was raised because according to NLU,
there are documents that are so inaccessible to them that (3) The decision must have something to support itself;
even with the exercise of due diligence they could not be
expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence (4) The evidence must be substantial;
in the CIR. That these documents, which NLU have now
attached as exhibits are of such far-reaching importance (5) The decision must be based on the evidence
and effect that their admission would necessarily mean presented at the hearing; or at least contained in the
the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered record and disclosed to the parties affected;
therein. (6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on
ISSUE: its own independent consideration of the law and facts of
the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
WON the issues should be properly directed, resolved, or subordinate;
determined by the CIR.
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial
RULING: questions, render its decision in such manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the various Issue
To begin with the issue before us is to realize the functions involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.
of the CIR. The CIR is a special court whose functions are
specifically stated in the law of its creation which is the SC said there was a failure to grasp the fundamental issue
Commonwealth Act No. 103. involved due to failure to receive all relevant evidence.

It is more an administrative board than a part of the Thus, the motion for a new trial was granted and the entire
integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended record of this case is remanded to the CIR.
to be a mere receptive organ of the government. Unlike a ACUZZAR VS JOROLAN
court of justice which is essentially passive, acting only GR NO. 177878
when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases APRIL 7, 2010
that are presented to it by the parties litigant. FACTS:
It not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in Respondents Jorolan filed Administrative Case No. 2000-
the determination of disputes between employers and 01 against petitioner before the PLEB ( People’s Law
employees but its functions are far more comprehensive Enforcement Board) charging the latter of Grave
and extensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire Misconduct for allegedly having an illicit relationship with
Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle respondent’s minor daughter.
any question, matter controversy or disputes arising
between, and/ or affecting employers and employees or Respondent also instituted a criminal case against
laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, and petitioner of child abuse.
Petitioners denied the allegations to before the PLEB. RE: Due process in administrative cases
Petitioner filed a motion to suspend the proceedings
before the PLEB pending resolution of the criminal case Contrary to petitioner’s claim that he has not been
filed before the regular court. The PLEB denied his motion afforded all the opportunity to present his side, our own
for lack of merit and a hearing of the case was conducted. review of the records of the proceedings before the PLEB
reveals otherwise.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Temporary In administrative proceedings, procedural due process
Restraining Order with the RTC of Tagum City. has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right
to actual or constructive notice of the institution of
Petitioner opted to file a petition for certiorari before the proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights;
trial court on the pretext that the PLEB had no jurisdiction (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the
to hear the administrative case until petitioner is convicted assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence
before the regular court. According to petitioner, although in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights; (3) a tribunal
the case filed before the PLEB was captioned as "Grave vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as
Misconduct," the offense charged was actually for to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable
"Violation of Law," which requires prior conviction before guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a
a hearing on the administrative case can proceed. Thus, finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial
petitioner insists that the PLEB should have awaited the evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing
resolution of the criminal case before conducting a or contained in the records or made known to the parties
hearing on the administrative charge against him. affected.

ISSUE: In the instant case, petitioner was notified of the complaint

against him and in fact, he had submitted his counter-
WON the petitioner’s resort to certiorari was not affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses. He attended
warranted as the remedy of appeal from the decision of the hearings together with his counsel and even asked for
the PLEB was available to him. several postponements. Petitioner therefore cannot claim
RULING: that he had been denied of due process. Due process in
an administrative context does not require trial-type
proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where
Section 43 (e) of Republic Act No. 6975, is explicit, thus:
opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or
through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due
SEC. 43. People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). - x x
process. The requirements are satisfied where the parties
are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain
(e) Decisions – The decision of the PLEB shall become
their side of the controversy.
final and executory: Provided, That a decision involving
demotion or dismissal from the service may be appealed CARBONELL VS CSC
by either party with the regional appellate board within ten GR NO. 187689
(10) days from receipt of the copy of the decision. SEPTEMBER 7, 2010
FACTS:
It is apparent from the foregoing provision that the remedy
of appeal from the decision of the PLEB to the Regional Petitioners Carbonell was an employee of the Bureau of
Appellate Board was available to petitioner. Since appeal Jail Management and Penology, Makati City. She was
was available, filing a petition for certiorari was inapt. formally charged with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and
Falsification of Official Documents by the Civil Service
A careful perusal of respondent’s affidavit-complaint Commission.
against petitioner would show that petitioner was charged
with grave misconduct for engaging in an illicit affair with This stemmed from the fact that Carbonell, during the
respondent’s minor daughter, he being a married man, Career Service Professional Examination, allegedly had a
and not for violation of law, as petitioner would like to personal and physical appearance was entirely different
convince this Court. Misconduct generally means from the picture of the examinee attached to the
wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct, motivated by application form and the picture seat plan. It was also
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. discovered that the signature affixed on the application
form was different from that appearing on the verification
The settled rule is that criminal and administrative cases slip.
are separate and distinct from each other. In criminal
cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed whereas She later on admitted that he accepted the proposal of a
in administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence certain Betinna Navarro to obtain for petitioner a Career
is required. Verily, administrative cases may proceed Service Professional Eligibility by merely accomplishing
independently of criminal proceedings.
an application form and paying the amount of However, it must be remembered that the right to counsel
₱10,000.00. under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a
suspect during custodial investigation. Thus, the
However later on she denied the admission stating that exclusionary rule under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the
Navarro was only there to submit the requirements to the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal
CSC. She, however, admitted that she failed to take the investigation but not to those made in an administrative
examination as she had to attend to her ailing mother. investigation.
Thus, when she received a certificate of eligibility despite
her failure to take the test, she was anxious to know the While investigations conducted by an administrative body
mystery behind it. may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact
remains that, under existing laws, a party in an
She claimed that she went to the CSCRO IV not to get a administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by
copy of the certificate of rating but to check the veracity of counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of
the certificate. More importantly, she questioned the use petitioner’s capacity to represent herself, and no duty
of her voluntary statement as the basis of the formal rests on such body to furnish the person being
charge against her inasmuch as the same was made investigated with counsel. The right to counsel is not
without the assistance of counsel. always imperative in administrative investigations
CSCRO IV rendered finding petitioner guilty of because such inquiries are conducted merely to
dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of official determine whether there are facts that merit the
documents. The penalty of dismissal from the service. imposition of disciplinary measures against erring public
officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining
Petitioner appealed to the CSC but was later on dismissed the dignity of government service.
for having been filed almost three years from receipt of
the decision (petitioner reasoned that her counsel died As such, the admissions made by petitioner during the
thus the late appeal). investigation may be used as evidence to justify her
dismissal.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the CA, CA affirmed thus
this petition. DE LA CRUZ VS ABILLE
GR NO. 130196
Petitioners assert that her guilt was was based solely on FEB 26, 2001
the unsworn statement, thus there was grave abused of FACTS:
discretion.
Abille, now deceased, owns a substantial parcel of land in
ISSUE: Pangasinan, which Dela Cruz was an agricultural tenant.

WON there was GAD when CSC denied appeal. (NO) After his death, Balbino dela Cruz was, nevertheless,
issued a Certificate of Land Transfer dated October 25,
RULING: 1981 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (that
emancipated all tenants farmers working on private
Appeal was filed way beyond the reglementary period agricultural lands).
when the decision had long become final and executory. Abille filed a petition for exemption under Operation Land
Transfer (OLT) of his landholdings alleging, among
The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the
others, that he was not notified of the coverage of his land.
period prescribed by law is mandatory. Failure to conform
to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final That prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Land
Transfer DAR did not notify him or his representative; that
and executory and beyond the power of the Court’s
he has been deprived of his constitutional right to due
review. Jurisprudence mandates that when a decision
process.
becomes final and executory, it becomes valid and
binding upon the parties and their successors-in-interest. Later on the Regional director of Bureau of Agrarian Legal
Such decision or order can no loner be disturbed or re- Assistance denying the petition for extension instead the
opened no matter how erroneous it may have been. right of retention of not more than seven (7) hectares is
RE: Judgement based solely on her uncounselled hereby granted. Canceling the Certificates of Land
admission. Transfer issued to the tenants on the retained area.

Abille selected the seven-hectare retention area, which

It is true that the CSCRO IV, the CSC, and the CA gave included the area covered by CLT issued to Dela Cruz.
credence to petitioner’s uncounselled statements and, hence, said CLT was automatically cancelled.
partly on the basis thereof, uniformly found petitioner
liable for the charge of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and
falsification of official document.
The heirs of Dela Cruz filed with the Department of The portion tilled by Balbino de la Cruz having been
Agrarian Reform a petition for the issuance of chosen by the owner Herminio Abille as part of his seven-
emancipation patent. hectare retention, petitioners as heirs of Balbino de la
Cruz are not entitled to an emancipation patent over the
The heirs of Abille opposed the petition and the order of same. Balbino de la Cruz was entitled to an agricultural
cancellation of the Certificate of Land Transfer of the leasehold contract to the area tilled by him and this is what
retained area, had become final and had been petitioners inherited.
implemented by the Provincial Agraria Officer of
Pangasinan; hence, the petition had become moot and Where there is no showing, as in the case at bar, that
academic. there was fraud, collusion, arbitrariness, illegality,
imposition or mistake on the part of a department head, in
The heirs of Dela Cruz assert through a motion for rendering his questioned decisions or of a total lack of
reconsideration praying that another Order be issued substantial evidence to support the same, such
declaring as null and void because thet were issued administrative decisions are entitled to great weight and
allegedly without giving them a day in court, hence, there respect and will not be interfered with.
was absence of due process of law, considering that
Balbino dela Cruz was already deemed owner of the VIVO VS PAGCOR
subject property. GR NO. 187854
NOVEMBER 12, 2013
ISSUE:

WON there was absence of due process. (NO) FACTS:

RULING: Vivo was an employee of PAGCOR and was PAGCOR’s
Managing Head of its Gaming Department at the time of
Although the petitioners were not given the opportunity to
his dismissal from office.
be heard when it was ordered that cancellation of
Certificate of Land of Dela Cruz nevertheless, in their Vivo received a letter via PAGCORs senior managing
petition for issuance of an emancipation patent, head of HR advising that he was being administratively
petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard as they charged with gross misconduct, rumor-mongering,
raised in issue the validity of the cancellation of the said conduct prejudicial to the interest of the company, and
CLT, which was resolved by DAR Regional Director and loss of trust and confidence; that he should submit a
also in their (petitioners') motion for written explanation of the charges; and that he was at the
reconsideration, which was treated as an appeal by the same time being placed under preventive suspension.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform and resolved in his Order.
Vivo’s counsel, replying to HRs letter, assailed the
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to propriety of the show-cause memorandum as well as the
be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, basis for placing the petitioner under preventive
an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action suspension.
or ruling complained of.
The petitioner received the summons for him to attend an
Futher, the petition filed by landowner, Abille, which was administrative inquiry, instructing him to appear before
for exemption of his property from the coverage of PAGCOR’s Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU). At the
Operation Land Transfer, did not require notice to petitioner’s request, however, the inquiry was conducted
petitioners. Petitioners were able to question the validity at his residence on said date.
of said Order (cancelling CLT No. 0-064711) in their
petition for issuance of emancipation patent, which was The memorandum of charges was based on the
resolved by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform in his statements of PAGCOR personnel who had personal
Decision. Hence, petitioners were given an opportunity to knowledge of the accusations against him. However,
be heard. when his counsel requested to be furnished copies of the
statements, PAGCOR rejected the request on the ground
Furthermore the CLT was validly cancelled since the that he had already been afforded the sufficient
landowner Herminio Abille having selected as part of his opportunity to confront, hear, and answer the charges
seven-hectare retention the area tilled by Balbino de la against him during the administrative inquiry.
Cruz, covered by a certificate of land transfer in his name,
the CLT was correctly cancelled. There was an investigation held again and the counsel
requested to move the said date however Adjudication
To hold otherwise would be to deprive the owner Herminio Committee denied the request upon the reason that the
Abille of his right of retention and to select the portion he presence of counsel was not necessary in the
wanted to retain. proceedings.
Vivo here received PAGCORS resolution to dismiss him explain his side. That, to us, was sufficient to meet the
from service. Vivo appealed to CSC. requirements of due process.

The CSC ruled that PAGCOR had violated the petitioner’s GLOBE TELECOM VS NTC
right to due process, and accordingly set aside his GR NO. 143964
dismissal. Petitioner takes the CA to task for not JULY 26 2004
considering: (1) PAGCOR’s failure to furnish him copies
of the Board Resolutions referred to by Ela in the
FACTS:
memorandum served on him, and (2) the refusal of
PAGCOR to have him be represented by counsel.
Smart filed a complaint with NTC praying that NTC order
ISSUE: the immediate interconnection of Smart’s and Globe’s
WON Petitioner’s right for due process was not violated GSM networks, particularly their respective SMS or
texting services. Smart alleged that Globe, with evident
transgressed the fundamental rules in administrative due
bad faith and malice, refused to grant Smart’s request for
process. (Yes, there was no violation of due process)
the interconnection of SMS.
RULING:
Smart Communications, Inc (Smart) filed with the NTC a
It is settled that there is no denial of procedural due Complaint to effect the interconnection of their SMS or
process where the opportunity to be heard either through texting services with petitioner Globe Telecom, Inc.
oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded. (Globe). Globe pointed out procedural defects in Smarts
complaints and moved to dismiss the case. I also pointed
The petitioner actively participated in the entire course of out that another network, Islacom, was allowed to provide
the investigation and hearings conducted by PAGCOR. such service without prior NTC approval.
He received the letter from Ela apprising him of his being
administratively charged for several offenses, and The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)
directing him to submit an explanation in writing. He was ruled that both Smart and Globe were “equally
later on properly summoned to appear before the CIU, blameworthy” and issued an Order penalizing both on the
which conducted its proceedings in his own residence ground of providing SMS under Value Added Services
upon his request. During the administrative inquiry, the (VAS) without prior approval from the NTC. The Court of
CIU served him a copy of the memorandum of charges, Appeals sustained the NTC Order.
which detailed the accusations against him and specified
the acts and omissions constituting his alleged offenses.
Globe filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and
He was also given the opportunity to appear before the
prohibition to nullify and set aside the Order. CA issued a
Adjudication Committee to answer clarificatory questions.
TRO. 3 months later, CA promulgated a decision affirming
Lastly, he was informed through a memorandum of the NTC’s Order. Globe filed a motion for partial
decision of the Board of Directors dismissing him from the reconsideration but the same was denied.
service.
Globe argues that the NTC has no power under Section
He made no credible showing of the supposed violation of 17 of the Public Service Law to subject Globe to an
his right to due process. He was heard through the written administrative sanction and a fine without prior notice and
statement he submitted in response to the memorandum hearing. Specifically, due process was denied because
of the charges against him. He actively participated in the the hearing actually conducted dwelt on different issues.
administrative inquiry conducted by the CIU at his own
residence. He was afforded the opportunity to clarify his ISSUE:
position in the proceedings before the Adjudication
Committee. WON globe was denied due process. (YES)

The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as RULED:

applied to administrative proceedings, this means a fair
and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side, or an The assailed Order violates due process for failure to
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or sufficiently explain the reason for the decision rendered,
ruling complained of. Administrative due process cannot for being unsupported by substantial evidence, and for
be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial imputing violation to, and issuing a corresponding fine on,
sense, for in the former a formal or trial-type hearing is not Globe despite the absence of due notice and hearing
which would have afforded Globe the right to present
always necessary, and technical rules of procedure are
evidence on its behalf.
not strictly applied.

The petitioner was not denied due process of law, for he

was afforded the fair and reasonable opportunity to
Penalized Via a Quasi-Judicial Process, OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VS MANUEL VALENCIA
Globe and Smart are Entitled to GR NO. 183890
Corresponding Protections APRIL 13, 2011
FACTS:
It is essential to understand that the assailed Order was
promulgated by NTC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial Valencia was the then the chief customs operation officer
functions. The case arose when Smart had filed the initial of the BOC.
complaint against Globe before NTC for interconnection
of SMS. On July 21, 2003, not satisfied that the entries made by
Valencia in his SALN were reflective of his actual net
NTC violated several of these cardinal rights due Globe in worth, Napoleon P. Guenero (Guerrero), Intelligence
the promulgation of the assailed Order. Officer of the Department of Finance, filed a
complaint/motion for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum.
First. The NTC Order is not supported by substantial
evidence. Neither does it sufficiently explain the reasons In his complaint, Guerrero alleged that Valencia
for the decision rendered. Any inconsistent decision maintained two (2) US dollar time deposit accounts with
lacking thorough, ratiocination in support may be the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC).
struck down as being arbitrary. And any decision with
absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity. The first account with the amount of US$2,013,248.80,
while the second, with the amount of US$1,812,165.38.
Second. Globe and Smart were denied opportunity to
present evidence on the issues relating to the nature of According to Guerrero, these huge amounts were "the
VAS and the prior approval. actual fruits of his illegal transactions and activities of as
an employee of the Bureau of Customs. The complaint
Until the promulgation of the assailed Order Globe and also alleged that the house and lot declared by Valencia
Smart were never informed of the fact that their operation in his SALNs was grossly undervalued considering that
of SMS without prior authority was at all an issue for the house, described as "impressive,”.
consideration. As a result, neither Globe or Smart was
afforded an opportunity to present evidence in their behalf Finally, it was alleged that from the credit card billings of
on that point. his Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Mastercard, it
could be inferred that Valencia maintained a lavish
It necessarily follows that if no evidence is procured lifestyle.
pertinent to a particular issue, any eventual resolution of
that issue on substantive grounds despite the absence of Consequently, an accused charged with Unexplained
evidence is flawed. Moreover, if the parties did have Wealth cannot claim to have been denied due process
evidence to counter the ruling but were wrongfully denied should he be held administratively liable for Dishonesty. It
the opportunity to offer the evidence, the result would be should be pointed out that the actual recital of facts of the
embarrassing on the adjudicator. complaint shows that the nature and cause of the
accusation hurled by Guerrero includes the charge of
Third. The imposition of fine is void for violation of due Dishonesty.
process
According to Valencia, the said order of the Ombudsman
Globe claims that the issue of its authority to operate SMS requiring him to file his comment after eight (8) long
services was never raised as an issue in months of inaction was "irregular, unprocedural and in
the Complaint filed against it by Smart. Nor did NTC ever violation of his constitutional right to due process."
require Globe to justify its authority to operate SMS
services before the issuance of the Order imposing the CA reversed the decision of the Ombudsman and has
fine. explained that the charge of unexplained wealth in
relation to Sec. 8 of RA 3019 was separate and distinct
Sections 17 and 21 of the Public Service Act confer two from the offense of dishonesty. It held that to hold
distinct powers on NTC. Under Section 17, NTC has the Valencia liable for dishonesty when in fact the charge
power to investigate a PTE compliance with a standard, against him was for unexplained wealth, violated
rule, regulation, order, or other requirement imposed by Valencia’s right to due process, especially his right to be
law or the regulations promulgated by NTC, as well as informed of the charges against him. It added that even if
require compliance if necessary. By the explicit language the offense were to be considered, there was no
of the provision, NTC may exercise the power without substantial evidence presented as the pieces of evidence
need of prior hearing. However, Section 17 does not presented were of no value, as these were only
include the power to impose fine in its enumeration. It is photocopies of petitioner’s TCTs, alleged letters of
Section 21 which adverts the power to impose fine and in agreement and unauthenticated copies of Valencia’s BPI
the same breath requires that the power may be exercised Mastercard transactions. The CA ordered Valencia’s
only after notice and hearing. reinstatement.
ISSUE: photocopied private documents are not evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
WON Valencia was deprived of due process. (No) conclusion.

WON there was enough evidence to hold Valencia Liable. As observed by the CA, the Ombudsman totally ignored
(No) the affidavit of BPI Service Manager Olaguer certifying
that he could not locate any time deposit record belonging
RULING: to Valencia. Being a responsible officer in custody of the
supposed time deposits, his attestation is the best
RE due process: evidence that the bank does not have a record of any time
deposit In sum, with the presented SALNs being the only
On due process, the Court agrees with the Ombudsman competent evidence for the prosecution, the Court
that Valencia was not deprived of his constitutional right upholds the finding of the CA that there is no substantial
thereto. evidence that respondent Manuel P. Valencia [1] acquired
property though unlawful means, [2] maintained US time
Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition of wealth, deposit accounts, and [3] lived a lavish lifestyle.
the evil sought to be suppressed and avoided, and
Section 7, which mandates full disclosure of wealth in the BARROSCO VS COA
SALN, is a means of preventing said evil and is aimed GR NO. 253253
particularly at curtailing and minimizing, the opportunities APRIL 27, 2021
for official corruption and maintaining a standard of
honesty in the public service. "Unexplained" matter FACTS:
normally results from "non-disclosure" or
concealment of vital facts. SALN, which all public Barrosco was the Supervisor of Cashiering Department
officials and employees are mandated to file, are the and President of BSU.
means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public
officers and employees in the government. By the SALN, Administrative Officer II Mag-abo was granted a cash
the public are able to monitor movement in the fortune of advance of P574,215.27 for the payment of the salaries
a public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism of the BSU employees. Mag-abo went to Landbank
to verify undisclosed properties and wealth. Malaybalay to encash the payroll check. Since there were
several customers at that time, she left the check with the
Consequently, an accused charged with Unexplained bank verifier and returned to BSU (Bukidnon State
Wealth cannot claim to have been denied due process University).
should (IF) he be held administratively liable for
Dishonesty. that same day, Mag-abo went back to Landbank together
with four (4) other BSU employees who had business
It should be pointed out that the actual recital of facts of there. After encashing the check, Mag-abo et al. walked
the complaint shows that the nature and cause of the back to BSU.
accusation hurled by Guerrero includes the charge of
Dishonesty. Well-settled is the rule that what determines As they passed Caltex gasoline station, an unidentified
the real nature and cause of the accusation against an man grabbed Mag-abo's bag containing the payroll
accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the money. The incident was reported to BSU Chief
information or complaint and not the caption or preamble Administrative Officer Gregory who accompanied Mag-
of the information or complaint, nor the specification of the abo to the police station to report the incident.
provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being
conclusions of law. COA Audit Team Leader Teresita Quijada informed
petitioner of Mag-abo's cash shortage of P574,215.27.
The Court, however, sustains the finding of the CA that Quijada also issued a Demand Letter to Mag-abo
there is no substantial evidence to hold Valencia liable for directing her to produce the unliquidated amount and
Dishonesty. explain within 72 hours why the cash shortage occurred.

To dismiss a public officer or employee on the basis of Mag-abo explained the incident to petitioner. In a
photocopies of private documents which are questioned separate letter to the COA Legal Adjudication Office,
and disputed is to set a dangerous precedent. It can be Mag-abo, too, requested relief from her cash
abused by oppressive or abusive superiors who may want accountability. Mag-abo's request got denied. The COA
their own protege to replace the charged officers or Adjudication and Settlement Board affirmed Mag-abo's
employees or by any individual who may want to harass liability.
a public employee for no legitimate reason at all.
Mag-abo elevated her case to the COA Commission
Photocopies should only be considered as evidence if Proper (COA Proper) via a petition for review. However,
they are not contested, if they are admitted, or if they his appeal was denied.
constitute matters which need not be proved. Unverified
Aggrieved, Mag-abo moved for reconsideration, attaching 6) The tribunal or any of its judges must act on its or
the affidavit dated March 2014 of retired BSU Accountant his own independent consideration of the facts
Gloria P. Torres (Torres) stating that Mag-abo requested and the law of the controversy, and not simply
for a security escort and vehicle from her supervisor, but accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a
none were provided. decision; and
COA Proper denied Mag-abo's motion and held her, 7) The board or body should, in all controversial
petitioner, and Gregory solidarily liable for the stolen questions, render its decision in such a manner
amount, owing to their supposed negligence when the that the parties to the proceeding will know the
loss occurred. various issues involved, and the reasons for the
decision.
The ruling surprised petitioner, considering he was never
a party to the case and was never even furnished copy of
Torres' affidavit. Thus, petitioner filed his own motion for The mere filing of a motion for reconsideration does not
reconsideration, invoking his right to due process and cure due process defects, especially if the said motion
questioning the basis of his supposed liability. was filed precisely to raise the issue of violation of the
right to due process and the lack of opportunity to be
It ruled that petitioner was not deprived of his right to due heard on the merits.
process. For although he was not impleaded in the
proceedings below, he was able to file a motion for Here, petitioner was found liable though he was never
reconsideration anyway right after he was found solidarily charged. The proceedings prior to the COA Proper's
liable with Mag-abo and Gregory. reconsideration all pointed to Mag-abo as sole negligent
party responsible for the loss of the P574,215.27
As for petitioner's liability, the COA Proper found that representing the salaries of BSU personnel. Petitioner
petitioner failed to exercise the diligence expected of a only got involved in the proceedings when the COA
good father since he did not adopt precautionary Proper denied Mag-abo's motion for reconsideration and
measures to safeguard the funds of BSU. It was only after ordered him to pay the unliquidated amount. Notably,
the robbery incident that petitioner realized the petitioner was brought in as party at a much later stage.
importance of sound internal control in the custody of the
agency's cash. Applying Fontanilla, petitioner here was similarly
deprived of the opportunity to present and submit
COA however stated that since petitioners filed for a evidence to establish non-culpability via memorandum or
motion to reconsider, he is assumed to be informed of his oral arguments before the COA Commission pursuant to
charges. Section 3, Rule X of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure
of the COA. Worse, he was deprived of the opportunity to
ISSUE: examine the evidence against him, for he was never
served a copy of Mag-abo's submissions which formed
WON COA violated Barrosco right to due process. (YES) the very basis of the adverse ruling of the COA Proper.

RULING: Though petitioner raised this due process violation issue

before the COA Proper, the latter never addressed his
Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations bears the concern. It simply ruled that the very pleading which
requisites of due process in administrative raised due process violation was the very pleading which
proceedings, viz.: afforded him due process. But this cannot be the case.

Petitioner was constrained to limit the discussion in his

1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right motion for reconsideration to the issue of due process.
to present one's case and submit evidence in Surely, this cannot be considered the opportunity to be
support thereof; heard within the concept of administrative due process.
2) The tribunal must consider the evidence INCIDENTAL POWERS AND RES JUDICATA
presented;

3) The decision must have something to support PASCUAL VS BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS
itself; 28 SCRA 345

4) The evidence must be substantial; FACTS:

5) The decision must be rendered on

the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least Salvador and Entiqueta Gatbonton filed a complaint
contained in the record and disclosed to the against Arsenio Pascual, Jr. for alleged malpractice.
parties; Counsel for complainants announced that he would
present as his first witness Pascual himself. Pascual
made a record of his objection, invoking his right to be The petitions seeking annulment of Datu Dimaporo’s
exempt from being a witness against himself. The Board proclamation were ultimately dismissed by the COMELEC
of Examiners took note of such plea and at the same time First Division. A motion for reconsideration was filed.
stated that at the next scheduled hearing, Pascual would
be called upon to testify as such witness, unless he could Dimaporo lost no time in seeking official recognition of his
secure a restraining order from a competent authority. status as mayor-elect of Marogong, as confirmed by the
COMELEC. His counsel sent a letter to the Provincial
The trial court ordered a writ of preliminary injunction Governor praying that official matters involving the affairs
issue against the respondent Board commanding it to of the Municipality of Marogong be accorded to Dimaporo.
refrain from hearing or further proceeding with the This letter, along with other documents collated by the
administrative case. The Board answered that the right Office of the Governor, were referred to the Provincial
against self-incrimination is available only when a Fiscal for legal opinion on the matter.
question calling for an incriminating answer is asked of a
witness. The Gatbontons also alleged that the right The legal opinion, signed by Asst. Provincial Fiscal
against self-incrimination cannot be availed of in an Danganan and with the conformity of Provincial Fiscal
administrative hearing. Dumarpa, is that Datu Maclis Balt is still the mayor of the
Municipality considering that a motion for reconsideration
ISSUE: was timely filed by the OIC and hence the decision of the
Division is not yet final and executory.
WON the right against self-incrimination is available in an
administrative hearing. On learning of this legal opinion, Datu Dimaporo filed with
the COMELEC en banc a motion to hold Fiscals Dumarpa
RULING: and Danganan, and Vice Governor Alauya in contempt,
that their communication is an act of improper conduct
tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or
Yes. As held in the case of Cabal vs. Kapunan, while the degrade the administration of justice; that OIC Maclis Balt
proceeding for forfeiture is administrative in character, had no right to file a motion for reconsideration as he has
such proceeding possesses a criminal or penal aspect. never been a candidate for Mayor in Marogong during the
local elections.
The case at bar is not dissimilar; the petitioner would be
similarly disadvantaged. He could suffer not the forfeiture The COMELEC issued a resolution declaring the
of property but the revocation of his license as medical Dumarpa et al. guilty of contempt. They filed a motion for
practitioner, for some an even greater deprivation. The reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, this
right against self-incrimination of the defendant includes petition for nullification of COMELEC’s resolution.
the right to forego testimony, to remain silent, unless he
chooses to take the witness stand. ISSUE:

We hold that in an administrative hearing against a WON Dumarpa, Danganan and Alauya should be cited in
medical practitioner for alleged malpractice, respondent contempt.
Board of Medical Examiners cannot, consistently with the
self-incrimination clause, compel the person proceeded RULING:
against to take the witness stand without his consent.
No. It appears that the resolution in question not only
DUMARPA VS DIMAPORO lacks factual foundation of any sort but is contradicted by
177 SCRA 478 such relevant facts as may be discerned from record.

FACTS: That opinion was rendered in answer to the inquiry of the

Acting Governor as to whether or not, in view of the
Datu Jamil Dimaporo was proclaimed by the Board of judgment by the First Division of the COMELEC upholding
Canvassers as Mayor-elect of Marogong. the proclamation by the Board of Canvassers of Datu
Dimaporo as Mayor-Elect of Marogong, the duly
Petitions were filed questioning the election results. While designated OIC Mayor, therefore acting as such, Datu
these petitions were pending adjudgment by the Maclis Balt, could still be recognized as the Mayor of the
COMELEC First Division, the Secretary of Local Municipality.
Governments issued on May 19, 1988 a memorandum
designating Maclis Balt as Officer-In-Charge, Office of the The inquiry had been made necessary in view of the
Mayor of Marogong. The designation of the OIC was conflict in claims to the mayoralty then being asserted by
made in view of the election controversy that has arisen both Datu Dimaporo and Datu Balt, which conflict had to
over the mayoralty race, and to ensure that the be swiftly and legally resolved to prevent its resolution by
democratic process is respected throughout the transition arms and bloodshed.
period.
The fiscals' opinion was based on "Sec. 3, paragraph C,
Article IX of the Constitution which mandates that motions Encinas proffered the defense of res judicata. The
for reconsideration from a decision of a Division of the CSCRO rejected such argument and ruled that the
Commission on Elections shall be decided En Banc by the dismissal of the BFP complaint was not a judgment on the
Commission." They declared that since "a motion for merits rendered by a competent tribunal.
reconsideration was timely filed by the OIC, the decision
of the Division is not final and executory. The decision of Encinas then filed an appeal memorandum with the CSC
the Commission En Banc is not yet even final until and main office, wherein he argued that the respondents were
after 5 days whenever no restraining order is issued by guilty of forum-shopping for having filed 2 separate
the Supreme Court." administrative complaints. The same was denied. He filed
a petition before the CA, which was also denied. Hence
The Court, quite frankly, sees in the text of the opinion this recourse to the Court.
nothing even remotely resembling an affront to the
COMELEC, or a criticism of the First Division's judgment. ISSUE:
On the contrary, the opinion simply paraphrases ---
correctly, it would appear the COMELEC's own Rules of WON the respondents are guilty of forum-shopping. (NO)
Procedure on the subject it addresses. But even if, as the
questioned Resolution declares, the views therein RULING:
expressed are clearly wrong, it cannot for that reason
alone be considered contumacious otherwise, liability for
contempt would invariably attach to every declared Forum-shopping
instance of orders or judgments rendered without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, or Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis
otherwise attended by serious error of one kind or pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
another. The absurdity of such a rule or policy need not case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia
be belabored. requires the concurrence of the following requisites:

Nor may the Acting Governor be faulted for consulting the (1) Identity of parties, or at least such parties as those
lawyers of the province as to the effects of a judgment on representing the same Interests in both actions;
the authority and actuations of municipal or provincial
officials, or the fiscals for advising him on such matters. (2) Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
reliefs being founded on the same facts;
ENCINAS VS AGUSTIN
GR NO. 187317 and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding
APRIL 11, 2013 particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that
may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which
FACTS: party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the
other case.
Respondents were both fire officers in Nueva Ecija. They
claimed that Encinas, who was then the Provincial Fire
Marshall of Nueva Ecija, informed them that unless they Applying the foregoing requisites to this case, we rule that
gave him P5,000, they would be relieved from their station the dismissal of the BFP Complaint does not constitute
at Cabanatuan City and transferred to far-flung areas. res judicata in relation to the CSCRO Complaint. Thus,
Four days after, Agustin and Caubang came up short and there is no forum-shopping on the part of respondents.
was only able to give P2,000. When they failed to deliver
the balance, Encinas issued instructions effectively Res judicata
reassigning respondents.
In order that res judicata may bar the institution of a
Respondents filed with the Bureau of Fire Protection a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur:
letter-complaint for illegal transfer of personnel under the (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must have
DILG Act of 1990 (RA 6795). Later, it was docketed by the been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
BFP for preliminary investigation for violation of RA 3019. subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment
The BFP recommended the dismissal of the on the merits; and (d) there must be between the first and
administrative complaint for insufficiency of evidence. the second actions (i) identity of parties, (ii) identity of
subject matter, and (iii) identity of cause of action.
Respondents likewise filed with the CSC Regional Office
in Pampanga. Essentially the same facts but this time, A judgment may be considered as one rendered on the
their action is based on Sec. 4(c) of the Code of Conduct merits "when it determines the rights and liabilities of the
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of
The formal charge was dishonesty, grave misconduct, formal, technical or dilatory objections;"or when the
and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service. The judgment is rendered "after a determination of which party
CSCRO ordered his dismissal from service.
is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon standard for its implementation thereby resulting in an
some preliminary or formal or merely technical point.” undue delegation of administrative power since the law
does not provide for the penalties for violations of its
In this case, there is no "judgment on the merits" in provisions. Moreover, he argues that the IRR provisions
contemplation of the definition above. The dismissal of the are invalid insofar as PD 1986 do not expressly authorize
BFP Complaint in the Resolution dated 05 July 2005 was the MTRCB to issue preventive suspension.
the result of a fact-finding investigation for purposes of
determining whether a formal charge for an administrative ISSUE:
offense should be filed. Hence, no rights and liabilities of
parties were determined therein with finality. WON there was undue delegation of legislative power.

The CA was correct in ruling that the doctrine of res RULING:

judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings, and not to the exercise of administrative No, there was no undue delegation of legislative power.
powers. Administrative powers here refer to those purely
administrative in nature, as opposed to administrative Administrative agencies have powers and functions which
proceedings that take on a quasi-judicial character. may be administrative, investigatory, regulatory, quasi-
legislative, or quasi-judicial, or a mix of the five, as may
In administrative law, a quasi-judicial proceeding involves be conferred by the Constitution or by statute. They have
(a) taking and evaluating evidence; (b) determining facts in fine only such powers or authority as are granted
based upon the evidence presented; and (c) rendering an or delegated, expressly or impliedly, by law. And in
order or decision supported by the facts proved. The determining whether an agency has certain powers, the
exercise of quasi-judicial functions involves a inquiry should be from the law itself. But once
determination, with respect to the matter in controversy, ascertained as existing, the authority given should be
of what the law is; what the legal rights and obligations of liberally construed.
the contending parties are; and based thereon and the
facts obtaining, the adjudication of the respective rights PD 1986 expressly empowered the MTRCB to regulate
and obligations of the parties. and supervise television programs to obviate the
exhibition of broadcast of indecent or immoral materials
SORIANO VS LAGUARDIA and to impose sanctions for violations and to prevent
587 SCRA 79 further violations as it investigates. Simply put, MTRCB’s
mandate under PD 1986 reveals the possession by the
FACTS: agency of the authority to issue the challenged order
of preventive suspension as this authority stems
Petitioner, as host of Dating Daan, during a broadcast naturally from, and is necessary for the exercise of its
made cussing remarks directed towards a certain Michael power of regulation and supervision.
stating:
There was no undue delegation of legislative power as
“Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae Section 3 of the IRR neither amended PD 1986 nor
o di ba. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon extended the effect of the law. Neither did the MTRCB, by
yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, imposing the assailed preventive suspension, outrun its
o di ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola authority under the law. More so, the preventive
ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang suspension was done in furtherance of it.
kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.”
Preventive suspension, it ought to be noted, is not a
Two days later, affidavit complaints were filed in the penalty by itself, being merely a preliminary step in an
MTRCB against petitioner in connection with the said administrative investigation. And the power to discipline
broadcast. Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt and impose penalties, if granted, carries with it the power
directly alluded to in petitioner’s remark, was then a to investigate administrative complaints and, during such
minister of INC and a regular host of the TV program Ang investigation, to preventively suspend the person subject
Tamang Daan. After notice and a preliminary conference, of the complaint.
the MTRCB preventively suspended the showing of Ang
Dating Daan for 20 days. Petitioner filed a MR but
eventually sought to withdraw it after filing with the Court
a petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the
preventive suspension order issued.

The MTRCB rendered judgement imposing a 3-month

suspension on Soriano from his program, “Ang Dating
Daan”. Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner argues, among others, that PD 1986 is not
complete in itself and does not provide for a sufficient