ASPREC V ITCHON 15 SCRA 921, SANCHEZ, April 30, 1966 NATURE Petition for review FACTS -Private respondent

Jacinto Hernandez (Hernandez) filed an administrative complaint against Cleto Asprec for unprofessional conduct with the Respondent Board of !aminers for "urve#ors$ Allegedl#% Hernandez and Asprec entered into an agreement wherein Asprec would surve# Hernandez& lot in Camarines "ur and would deliver to the latter a plan approved '# the (irector of )ands w*n + months after completion of the surve#% and procure the issuance of a C,C to the lot w*n - months after the plan&s approval$ However% even if Hernandez paid the agreed amount% Asprec did not deliver the plan% and the alleged plan dul# delivered and approved was for one (amian Alham'ra% and the plan su'mitted was merel# a certified cop# of the plan$ .t should also 'e noted that during the proceedings in the Board of !aminers% Asprec*his counsel had man# times 'een a'sent% late% sic/0which caused the dela# of the proceedings$ -Respondent Board1 2or Hernandez1 (3) no actual surve# of the land made4 (5) mone# was paid4 Asprec !s "#il$% &' (ecei$ !)( $*#s +i&l!$e( $*e C&(e &' E$*ics '&r s#r+e%&rs, *is cer$i'ic!$e &' re"is$r!$i&) !s pri+!$e l!)( s#r+e%&r REVO,E- !)( re.#ire( $& /e s#rre)(ere(0 -Asprec filed petition with the C2. of Camarines "ur for certiorari to annul the orders revo/ing his surve#or&s certificate of registration4 mandamus to compel the Board to conduct a formal hearing of the complaint against him4 and prohi'ition% to stop e!ecution of the orders to surrender said certificate$ ,he preliminar# in6unction pra#ed for was re6ected 'elow -C2.1 dismiss with costs ISSUES 3$ 789 Asprec was denied due process in not 'eing a'le to participate in the hearing 5$ 789 the proceedings 'efore the Board% 'eing :uasi-criminal in nature% was valid granted Asprec a'sented himself from it +$ 789 the decision of the Board rendered upon a motion for 6udgment on the pleadings valid (other issues were more on Civpro than Admin so not included) HE110 NO Ratio. Presence of a part# at a trial is not alwa#s the essence of due process$ Reall# all that the law re:uires to satisf# adherence to this Constitutional precept is that the parties 'e given notice of the trial% an opportunit# to 'e heard$ Reasoning$ Petitioner has had more than ample opportunit# to defend himself 'efore the Board$ As he and counsel did not appear at the last and stipulated date of hearing% he cannot loo/ to the law or to a 6udicial tri'unal to whipsaw the Board into giving him a new one$ He cannot raise his voice in protest against the act of the Board in proceeding in his and his counsel;s a'sence$ And this 'ecause without cause or reason% without an# e!cuse at all% counsel and client have chosen to sh# awa# from the trial$ 5$ < " Ratio. 7here the respondent in a petition for contempt failed to appear on the date set for the hearing% of which he was previousl# notified% it was held that he was not deprived of his da# in court when the 6udge ordered him arrested unless he pa# the support he was ad6udged to give% he having 'een given an opportunit# to 'e heard$ "imilarl#% the defendant;s failure to appear with the counsel of his choice at the trial% notwithstanding repeated postponements and the warning that failure to so appear would 'e deemed a waiver of the right to present evidence in his defense and the case will 'e su'mitted for decision on the evidence su'mitted '# the prosecution% was a sufficient 6ustification for the court to proceed and render 6udgment upon evidence 'efore it$ +$ < "

Ratio. A rule so long respected% 'ecause it is 'uttressed upon reason and authorit#% is that technical rules of court practice% procedure and evidence are not to 'e applied with rigidit# in administrative proceedings$ 7e should have in mind the nature of administrative 'odies% the character of the duties the# are re:uired to perform% the purposes for which the# are organized% the persons who compose them$ Here% we are concerned with mem'ers of a 'oard of surve#ors = technical men 'ut not necessaril# trained law men$ .n this posture% it is :uite reasona'le to assume that their proceedings ma# not 'e conducted with that degree of e!actness or with such scrupulous o'servance of the comple! technical rules e!pected in a legal 'attle 'efore a court of 6ustice$ ,heir acts should not 'e measured '# the same #ardstic/ e!acted of a 6udge in a court of law$ "o much leewa# is given an investigating administrative 'od#$ Reasoning. ,he plan allegedl# made '# Asprec was not the plan of an original surve# 'ut a mere cop# from another plan$ Both the plans were su'mitted to the Board$ "o it is% that when counsel for Hernandez manifested that all the evidence against petitioner was su'mitted to the Board and that for that reason he was resting his case% he evidentl# had in mind the admissions in the pleadings and the plans and decisions and report here noted$ And% the motion for 6udgment on the pleadings was a mere follow-up of the manifestation 6ust adverted to$ As the trial court well o'served% counsel for respondent Hernandez did not present a motion for 6udgment on the pleadings in the strict sense of the word% 'ut >a motion which for lac/ of another e!pression% he called a motion for 6udgment on the pleadings$> )ac/ of o'servance of this technicalit# which does not :uarrel with a fair concept of 6ustice should 'e overloo/ed$ Disposition. ?pon the view we ta/e of this case% the decision is here'# affirmed$ Costs against petitioner$

VINTA 2ARITI2E V N1RC 34!sc&)cill&5 267 SCRA 656, PAN8ANI4AN9 :!)#!r% 3, 1996 NATURE "pecial civil action of certiorari FACTS - )eonides C$ BA"C89C.))8% filed a complaint with the Philippine 8verseas mplo#ment Administration (P8 A) 7or/ers& Assistance and Ad6udication 8ffice for illegal dismissal against @inta Aaritime Co$% .nc$ and l/ano "hip Aanagement% .nc$ - ,he emplo#ers alleged that he was dismissed for his gross negligence and incompetent performance as chief engineer of the M/V Boracay. ,he# claim that he was "i+e) '!ir !r)i)" !)( e)&#"* &pp&r$#)i$% $& e;pl!i) *is si(e% not to mention all the chances given to him to improve his su'standard wor/ performance 'efore he was dismissed$ - ,he emplo#ee denied the allegations against him4 contrar# to his emplo#er&s claim% he was actuall# surprised when he was told of his dismissal$ ,his occurred after he had a ver'al altercation with a British national% regarding the lac/ of discipline of the 2ilipino crew under the engineer&s supervision$ N& i).#ir% &r i)+es$i"!$i&), *& e+er, re"!r(i)" *is s#pp&se( i)c&<pe$e)ce &r )e"li"e)ce !s e+er c&)(#c$e(4 neither was private respondent furnished with a notice or memorandum regarding the cause of his dismissal$ - P8 A considered the case su'mitted for resolution by mutual agreement of the parties after submission of their respective position papers and supporting documents. POEA A(<i)is$r!$&r Ac*!c&s& r#le( $*!$ pri+!$e resp&)(e)$ !s ille"!ll% (is<isse( $ - 8n appeal% the 9)RC affirmed the P8 A$ ISSUE=S 3$ 789 trial is indispensa'le in administrative proceedings 5$ 789 the emplo#ee was illegall# dismissed HE13$ 98 Ratio Although 'ound '# law and practice to o'serve due process% administrative agencies e!ercising :uasi-6udicial powers are nonetheless free from the rigidit# of certain procedural re:uirements$

-UE PROCESS> C!r(i)!l Pri<!r% Ri"*$s - .n la'or cases% this Court has consistentl# held that due process does not necessaril# mean or re:uire a hearing% 'ut simpl# an opportunit# or a right to 'e heard$ ,he re:uirements of due process are deemed to have 'een satisfied when parties are given the opportunit# to su'mit position papers$ ,he holding of an adversarial trial is discretionar# on the la'or ar'iter and the parties cannot demand it as a matter of right$ - ,hese rules equally apply to cases filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment dministration d!udication Office$ Proceedings 'efore a P8 A hearing officer are non-litigious% although the# are still su'6ect to the re:uirements of due process$ Reasoning Petitioners were given their chance to 'e heard$ ,heir answer% position paper and supporting documents had 'ecome parts of the records and were considered '# the P8 A and '# the 9)RC$ 5$ < " Ratio 7here there is no showing of a clear% valid% and legal cause for the termination of emplo#ment% the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal$ @eril#% the 'urden is on the emplo#er to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause$ - (ue process% the second element for a valid dismissal% re:uires 98,.C and H AR.9B$ ,he emplo#er must furnish the wor/er with two written notices 'efore termination can 'e legall# effected1 (3) notice which apprises the emplo#ee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and (5) su'se:uent notice which informs the emplo#ee of the emplo#er&s decision to dismiss him$ Disposition Petition is "#$M#$$E"$

Bachrach&s petition to discharge Aa!imo Jaco' HE1- 98 Ratio ,he right of a part# to confront and cross-e!amine opposing witnesses in a 6udicial litigation% 'e it criminal or civil in nature% or in proceedings 'efore administrative tri'unals with :uasi-6udicial powers% is a fundamental right which is part of due process$ Reasoning -C.R did not err in ordering the dismissal of Bachrach&s petition to discharge Aa!imo Jaco'$ Petitioner presented onl# one witness% Joseph Iaplin% to prove its case against driver Jaco'$ ,he witness failed however to appear at the scheduled hearings for his crosse!amination for the simple reason that he left for a'road$ Having 'een deprived% without fault on its part% of its right to cross-e!amine Iaplin% respondent association was entitled to have the direct testimon# of the witness stric/en off the record$ -.n Ortigas 'r. v. (uftansa )erman irlines% 3CGD% this Court held inter alia1 Oral testimony may be ta*en into account only when it is complete+ that is+ if the witness has been wholly cross,e-amined by the adverse party or the right to cross,e-amine is lost wholly or in part thru the fault of such adverse party$ But when cross-e!amination is not and cannot 'e done or completed due to causes attri'uta'le to the part# offering the witness% the uncompleted testimon# is there'# rendered incompetent$ -,he right of a part# to cross-e!amine the witness of his adversar# is invalua'le as it is inviola'le in civil cases% no less than the right of the accused in criminal cases$ ,he e!press recognition of such right of the accused in the Constitution does not render the right thereto of parties in civil cases less constitutionall# 'ased% for it is an indispensa'le part of the due process guaranteed '# the fundamental law$ $$$ ?ntil such cross-e!amination has 'een finished% the testimon# of the witness cannot 'e considered as complete and ma# not% therefore% 'e allowed to form part of the evidence to 'e considered '# the court in deciding the case$ -.nasmuch as the testimon# of Joseph Iaplin is stric/en off the record and the contents of !hi'its >3> to >E-2> are hearsa#% and there is no other evidence which su'stantiates the charges against Aa!imo Jaco'% the dismissal of the compan#;s petition to discharge Jaco' from its service is in order$ Disposition Petition is dismissed$

4ACHRACH 2OTOR CO0, INC0 V CIR 3RURA1 TRANSIT E2P1O?EES ASSOCIATION5 66 SCRA 2@9 2UAOZ>PA12A9 Oc$&/er 30, 19@6 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS -.n 3CDE the Bachrach Aotor Co$% .nc$ was in the transportation 'usiness and operated what was then /nown as the >Rural ,ransit>$ -.n that #ear% the Rural ,ransit mplo#ees Association went on stri/e and the dispute 'etween the management and the union reached the Court of .ndustrial Relations% which immediatel# ordered the stri/ers to return to wor/ and the management to ta/e them 'ac/ under the terms and conditions e!isting 'efore the dispute arose$ -7hile the la'or dispute was pending with the C.R% Bachrach filed a >Petition for Authorit# to discharge driver Aa!imo Jaco' from the serviceF for alleged violations of the Aotor @ehicle )aw resulting in damage to propert# and in6uries to third parties% the latest of which resulted in the >total destruction of 'us 3GH> of the compan#$ -,he Rural ,ransit mplo#ees Association denied the charges and alleged that the last incident was due to a mechanical defect of the 'us which was 'e#ond the control of the driver Jaco' -(uring the hearing of Bachrach%s petition% Ar$ Joseph Iaplin% general manager of Rural ,ransit% was presented as the lone witness -After Ar$ Iaplin concluded his direct testimon#% the hearing was scheduled for another date for purposes of cross-e!amination of the witness$ ,he case was reset on various dates 'ut Ar$ Iaplin failed to appear 'ecause he had left for a'road$ -,he emplo#ee;s association filed a motion pra#ing that1 (a) the testimon# of Ar$ Joseph Iaplin 'e stric/en from the records (') the petition of the Compan# for authorit# to dismiss Aa!imo Jaco' from the service 'e denied1 and (c) the Compan# 'e ordered to reinstate Aa!imo Jaco' immediatel# with 'ac/wages from June C% 3C-3 up to the date of his actual reinstatement$ -,he C.R dismissed the compan#;s petition% lifted the suspension of driver Jaco'% and ordered his reinstatement with 'ac/wages -Bachrach&s motion for reconsideration having 'een denied% it filed the instant Petition for certiorari ISSUE 789 the C.R erred in ordering the dismissal of

UP 4OAR- OF RE8ENTS V0 CA 3ARO,IASBA2? BI11IA2 2AR8ARET CE1INE5 80R0 N&0 1376259 2EN-OZA9 A#"#s$ 31, 1999 NATURE Petition for review FACTS -Private respondent Aro/iaswam# 7illiam Aargaret Celine is a citizen of .ndia and holder of a Philippine visitor&s visa$ she enrolled in the doctoral program in Anthropolog# of the ?niversit# of the Philippines College of "ocial "ciences and Philosoph# (C""P) in (iliman% Juezon Cit#$ -After completing the units of course wor/ re:uired in her doctoral program% private respondent went on a two-#ear leave of a'sence to wor/ as ,amil Programme Producer of the @atican Radio in the @atican and as Beneral 8ffice Assistant at the .nternational Right to )ife 2ederation in Rome$ "he returned to the Philippines to wor/ on her dissertation entitled% >,amil .nfluences in Aala#sia% .ndonesia and the Philippines$> -(r$ Realidad "$ Rolda% chairperson of the ?$P$ (epartment of Anthropolog#% wrote a letter to (r$ Aaria "erena (io/no% C""P Associate (ean and Braduate Program (irector% certif#ing that private respondent had finished her dissertation and was read# for her oral defense$ "he was allowed to give an oral defense$ -After going over private respondent&s dissertation% (r$ Aedina informed C""P (ean Consuelo Joa:uin-Paz that there was a portion in private respondent&s dissertation that was lifted% without proper

ac/nowledgment% from Balfour&s C#clopaedia of .ndia and astern and "outhern Asia (3C-G) and from John d#e&s article entitled >(escription of the @arious Classes of @essels Constructed and mplo#ed '# the 9atives of the Coasts of Coromandel% Aala'ar% and the .sland of Ce#lon for their Coasting 9avigation> in the Ro#al Asiatic "ociet# of Breat Britain and .reland Journal$ -9onetheless% private respondent was allowed to defend her dissertation$ 2our (K) out of the five (D) panelists gave private respondent a passing mar/ for her oral defense '# affi!ing their signatures on the approval form$ -,he C""P College 2acult# Assem'l# approved private respondent&s graduation pending su'mission of final copies of her dissertation$ -,he ?niversit# Council met to approve the list of candidates for graduation for the second semester of school #ear 3CC5-3CC+$ ,he list% which was endorsed to the Board of Regents for final approval% included private respondent&s name$ -(ean Paz sent a letter to (r$ Ailagros .'e% @ice Chancellor for Academic Affairs% re:uesting the e!clusion of private respondent&s name from the list of candidates for graduation% pending clarification of the pro'lems regarding her dissertation$ -(ean Paz&s letter did not reach the Board of Regents on time% 'ecause the ne!t da#% the Board approved the ?niversit# Council&s recommendation for the graduation of :ualified students% including private respondent$ ,wo da#s later% private respondent graduated with the degree of (octor of Philosoph# in Anthropolog#$ -(r$ Aedina formall# charged private respondent with plagiarism and recommended that the doctorate granted to her 'e withdrawn$ -(ean Paz formed an ad hoc committee to investigate the plagiarism charge against private respondent$ Aeanwhile% she recommended to ?$P$ (iliman Chancellor% (r$ merlinda Roman% that the Ph$($ degree conferred on private respondent 'e withdrawn$ -.n a letter (ean Paz informed private respondent of the charges against her$ -,he C""P College Assem'l# unanimousl# approved the recommendation to withdraw private respondent&s doctorate degree and forwarded its recommendation to the ?niversit# Council$ ,he ?niversit# Council% in turn% approved and endorsed the same recommendation to the Board of Regents on August 3-% 3CC+$ -Aeanwhile% in a letter% ?$P$ (iliman Chancellor merlinda Roman summoned private respondent to a meeting on the same da# and as/ed her to su'mit her written e!planation to the charges against her$ -(uring the meeting% Chancellor Roman informed private respondent of the charges and provided her a cop# of the findings of the investigating committee$ Private respondent% on the other hand% su'mitted her written e!planation in a letter$ -Another meeting was held 'etween Chancellor Roman and private respondent to discuss her answer to the charges$ A $*ir( <ee$i)" !s sc*e(#le( /#$ pri+!$e resp&)(e)$ (i( )&$ !$$e)( i$, !lle"i)" $*!$ $*e 4&!r( &' Re"e)$s *!( !lre!(% (eci(e( *er c!se /e'&re s*e c&#l( /e '#ll% *e!r(0 -B8R withdrew degree -,C dismissed petition for mandamus filed '# Aro/iaswam#$ CA reversed ordering B8R to restore her doctoral degree$ ISSUE 789 Aro/iaswam# was denied due process HE1- NO0 Reasoning .n this case% the trial court dismissed private respondent&s petition precisel# on grounds of academic freedom 'ut the Court of Appeals reversed holding that private respondent was denied due process$ .t said1 .t is worth# to note that during the proceedings ta/en '# the College Assem'l# culminating in its recommendation to the ?niversit# Council for the withdrawal of petitioner&s Ph$($ degree% petitioner was not given the chance to 'e heard until after the withdrawal of the degree was consummated$ Petitioner&s su'se:uent letters to the ?$P$ President proved unavailing$ As the foregoing narration of facts in this case shows% however% various committees had 'een formed to investigate the charge that

private respondent had committed plagiarism and% in all the investigations held% she was heard in her defense$ .ndeed% if an# criticism ma# 'e made of the universit# proceedings 'efore private respondent was finall# stripped of her degree% it is that there were too man# committee and individual investigations conducted% although all resulted in a finding that private respondent committed dishonest# in su'mitting her doctoral dissertation on the 'asis of which she was conferred the Ph$($ degree$ .ndeed% in administrative proceedings% the essence of due process is simpl# the opportunit# to e!plain one&s side of a controvers# or a chance to see/ reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of$ A part# who has availed of the opportunit# to present his position cannot tena'l# claim to have 'een denied due process$ .n this case% private respondent was informed in writing of the charges against her and afforded opportunities to refute them$ "he was as/ed to su'mit her written e!planation% which she forwarded$ Private respondent then met with the ?$P$ chancellor and the mem'ers of the Lafaralla committee to discuss her case$ .n addition% she sent several letters to the ?$P$ authorities e!plaining her position$ .t is not tena'le for private respondent to argue that she was entitled to have an audience 'efore the Board of Regents$ (ue process in an administrative conte!t does not re:uire trial-t#pe proceedings similar to those in the courts of 6ustice$ .t is noteworth# that the ?$P$ Rules do not re:uire the attendance of persons whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board of Regents$ -isp&si$i&) Petition for mandamus (."A."" (

ZA24A1ES CHRO2ITE 2ININ8 CO0 V0 CA 3SEC0 OF A8RI AN- NATURA1 RESOURCES5 80R0 N&0 1>79@119 ACUINO9 N&+e</er @, 19@9 NATURE Petition for review FACTS -,his is a mining case$ ,he petitioners appealed from the second decision of the Court of Appeals% reversing its first decision and holding that it was improper for Ben6amin A$ Bozon% as "ecretar# of Agriculture and 9atural Resources% to affirm his own decision as (irector of Aines$ -,he Court of Appeals further held that the trial court;s 6udgment% confirming the "ecretar#;s decision% should 'e se$ !si(e and that the Ainister of 9atural Resources should review anew the decision of the (irector of Aines >and% thereafter% further proceedings will 'e ta/en in the trial court>$ ,he antecedental proceedings are as follows1 (3) .n Aines Administrative Case 9o$ @-55G% (irector Bozon issued an order dated 8cto'er D% 3C-H wherein he dismissed the case filed '# the petitioners or protestants (Lam'ales Chromite Aining Co$% .nc$ or the group of Bonzalo P$ 9ava)$ .n that case% the# sought to 'e declared the rightful and prior locators and possessors of si!t#-nine mining claims located in "anta Cruz% Lam'ales$ 8n the 'asis of petitioners; evidence (the private respondents did not present an# evidence and the# filed a demurrer to the evidence or motion to dismiss the protest)% (irector Bozon found that the petitioners did not discover an# mineral nor sta/ed and located mining claims in accordance with law$ .n that same order% (irector Bozon ruled that the mining claims of the groups of Bregorio Aartinez and Pa'lo Pa'iloMa% now the private respondents-appellees% were dul# located and registered (pp$ 55K-5+3% Record on Appeal)$ (5) ,he petitioners appealed from that order to the "ecretar# of Agriculture and 9atural Resources$ 7hile the appeal was pending% (irector Bozon was appointed "ecretar# of Agriculture and 9atural Resources$ .nstead of inhi'iting himself% he decided the appeal% (A9R Case 9o$ 53D3% on August 3-% 3C-+ as if he was ad6udicating the case for the first time$ ,hus% "ecretar# Bozon e!ercised appellate 6urisdiction over a case which he had decided as (irector of Aines$ He acted as reviewing authorit# in the appeal from his own decision$ 8r%

to use another analog#% he acted as trial 6udge and appellate 6udge in the same case$ ISSUE 789 Bozun correctl# reviewed his own decision HE1- NO0 Reasoning "ecretar# Bozon acted with grave a'use of discretion in reviewing his decision as (irector of Aines$ ,he palpa'l# flagrant anomal# of a "ecretar# of Agriculture and 9atural Resources reviewing his own decision as (irector of Aines is a moc/er# of administrative 6ustice$ ,he Aining )aw% Commonwealth Act 9o$ 3+G% provides1 >" C$ -3$Conflicts and disputes arising out of mining locations shall 'e su'mitted to the (irector of Aines for decision1 >Provided% ,hat the decision or order of the (irector of Aines ma# 'e appealed to the "ecretar# of Agriculture and 9atural Resources within thirt# da#s from the date of its receipt$ >.n case an# one of the parties should disagree from the decision or order of the (irector of Aines or of the "ecretar# of Agriculture and 9atural Resources% the matter ma# 'e ta/en to the court of competent 6urisdiction within thirt# da#s from the receipt of such decision or order4 otherwise the said decision or order shall 'e final and 'inding upon the parties concerned$> (As amended '# Repu'lic Act 9o$ GKapproved on June 3E% 3CD5)$ ?ndou'tedl#% the provision of section that the decision of the (irector of Aines ma# 'e appealed to the "ecretar# of Agriculture and 9atural Resources contemplates that the "ecretar# should 'e a person different from the (irector of Aines$ .n order that the review of the decision of a su'ordinate officer might not turn out to 'e a farce% the reviewing officer must perforce 'e other than the officer whose decision is under review4 otherwise% there could 'e no different view or there would 'e no real review of the case$ ,he decision of the reviewing officer would 'e a 'iased view4 inevita'l#% it would 'e the same view since 'eing human% he would not admit that he was mista/en in his first view of the case$ ,hat is the o'vious% elementar# reason 'ehind the dis:ualification of a trial 6udge% who is promoted to the appellate court% to sit in an# case wherein his decision or ruling is the su'6ect of review ("ec$ 3% Rule 3+G% Rules of Court4 secs$ C and 5G% Judiciar# )aw)$ A sense of proportion and consideration for the fitness of things should have deterred "ecretar# Bozon from reviewing his own decision as (irector of Aines$ He should have as/ed his ?ndersecretar# to underta/e the review$Petitioners-appellants were deprived of due process% meaning fundamental fairness$ -isp&si$i&) 8rder of the "ecretar# of Agriculture and 9atural Resources " , A".(

RIVERA V CIVI1 SERVICE CO22ISSION 270 SCRA 739 VITU89 :AN 7, 1995 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS - Petitioner Rivera was the Aanager of Corporate Ban/ing ?nit . of the )and Ban/ of the Philippines (>)BP>)$ 8n the 'asis of the affidavits of )ao and Perez% petitioner was charged '# the )BP President with having committed the following offenses1 >(3) (ishonest#4 >(5) Receiving for personal use of fee% gift or other valua'le thing% in the course of official duties or in connection therewith when such fee% gift% or other valua'le thing is given '# an# person in the hope or e!pectation of receiving a favor or 'etter treatment than that accorded other persons4 >(+) Committing acts punisha'le under the Anti-Braft laws4 >(K) Pursuit of private 'usiness vocation or profession without the permission re:uired '# Civil "ervice Rules and regulations4 >(D) @iolation of Res$ EG-A% R$A$ 9o$ ++G4 resulting to misconduct and conduct pre6udicial to the 'est interest of the service$>

- Rivera allegedl# told Perez% the Aar/eting Aanager of 7#nner which had a pending loan application with )BP% that he could facilitate the processing% approval and release of the loan if he would 'e given a ten percent (3HN) commission$ Rivera was said to have su'se:uentl# received a P5HH%HHH$HH commission out of the P+%HHH%HHH$HH loan proceeds from the )BP$ 2rom )ao% who had su'stantial investments in 7#nner% Rivera supposedl# li/ewise received the amount of appro!imatel# P5H%HHH$HH poc/et mone# for his trip to the ?nited "tates% as well as additional funds for his plane tic/et% hotel accommodations and poc/et mone# for still another trip to Hong/ong$ - Rivera was further charged with% among other things% having served and acted% without prior authorit# re:uired '# Civil "ervice Rules and Aemorandum Circular 9o$ 3H5D of the 8ffice of the President of the Philippines% as the personal consultant of )ao and as consultant in various companies where )ao had investments$ He drew and received salaries and allowances appro!imatel# P5H%HHH$HH a month evidenced '# vouchers of dge Apparel% .nc$% J O A Clothing Corporation% and JA ,rading Corporation$ - 8nce the charges were filed% Rivera was placed under preventive suspension$ After a formal investigation% the )BP held Rivera guilt# of grave misconduct and acts pre6udicial to the 'est interest of the service in accepting emplo#ment from a client of the 'an/ and in there'# receiving salaries and allowances in violation of "ection 35% Rule P@...% of the Revised Civil "ervice Rules$ He was also found to have transgressed the prohi'ition in "ection +% paragraph (d)% of the AntiBraft and Corrupt Practices Act (Repu'lic Act 9o$ +H3C% as amended)$ ,he penalt# of forced resignation% without separation 'enefits and gratuities% was thereupon imposed on Rivera$ 8n appeal% the decision was modified '# the Aerit "#stems Protection Board (>A"PB>) which held Rivera guilt# onl# of committing acts pre6udicial to the 'est interest of the service$ ,he )BP filed a motion for the reconsideration of A"PB;s decision$ .n its resolution% the A"PB denied the motion$ - Rivera and the )BP 'oth appealed to the C"C$ ,he C"C dismissed the appeal of Respondent Beorge Rivera% finding him guilt# of Brave Aisconduct for which he is meted out the penalt# of dismissal from the service$ Rivera filed a motion for reconsideration% which the C"C denied in its Resolution 9o$ CK-35G-$ - Petitioner averred that the C"C committed grave a'use or discretion in imposing the capital penalt# of dismissal on the 'asis of unsu'stantiated finding and conclusions$ ,he "C Court resolved to dismiss the petition for petitioner;s failure to sufficientl# show that C"C acted with grave a'use of discretion in issuing its :uestioned resolution$ Rivera filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court;s dismissal of the petition% now strongl# asserting that he was denied due process when Baminde% who earlier participated in her capacit# as the Board Chairman of the A"PB when the latter had ta/en action on )BP;s motion for reconsideration% also too/ part% this time as a C"C Commissioner% in the resolution of petitioner;s motion for reconsideration with the C"C$ ISSUE 789 petitioner was denied due process when Baminde% who earlier participated in her capacit# as the Board Chairman of the A"PB when the latter had ta/en action on )BP;s motion for reconsideration% also too/ part% this time as a C"C Commissioner% in the resolution of petitioner;s motion for reconsideration with the C"C HE1- < "$ - .n Lam'ales Chromite Aining Compan# vs$ Court of Appeals% the decision of the "ecretar# of Agriculture and 9atural Resources was set aside '# this Court after it had 'een esta'lished that the case concerned an appeal from the "ecretar#;s own previous decision he handed down while he was #et the incum'ent (irector of Aines$ Calling the act of the "ecretar# a >moc/er# of administrative 6ustice%> the Court said1 Q.n order that the review of the decision of a su'ordinate officer might not turn out to 'e a farce% then reviewing officer must perforce 'e other than the officer whose decision is under review4 otherwise% there could 'e no different view or there would 'e no real review of the case$ ,he decision of the reviewing officer would 'e a 'iased view4 inevita'l#% it

would 'e the same view since 'eing human% he would not admit that he was mista/en in his first view of the case$> - Biven the circumstances in the case at 'ench% it should have 'ehooved Commissioner Baminde to inhi'it herself totall# from an# participation in resolving Rivera;s appeal to C"C if we are to give full meaning and conse:uence to a fundamental aspect of due process$ ,he argument that Commissioner Baminde did not participate in A"PB;s decision of 5C August 3CCH is unaccepta'le$ .t is not denied that she did participate% indeed has concurred% in A"PB;s resolution of H+ Aarch 3CCK% den#ing the motion for reconsideration of A"PB;s decision of 5C August 3CCH$ cdrep Dispositive .esolution set aside% case remanded to /$/

5$ 789 the final 6udgment constitutes res 6udicata on the ground that the final 6udgment in was a 6udgment on the merits$ Hel(F 10 NO0 .n finding that B, B proceedings were irregular% the 8P didn&t commit BA( as B, B indeed violated the right to due process of Blorious$ B, B failed to disclose evidence used '# it in rendering the resolution against Blorious "un$ ,he decision penned '# (eput# !ecutive "ecretar# Aagdangal B$ lma and the resolution penned '# Acting (eput# !ecutive "ecretar# Aariano "armiento .. are not tainted in the slightest '# an# grave a'use of discretion$ ,he# outline in detail wh# the private respondent was denied due process when its e!port :uotas were cancelled '# B, B ,he findings are supported '# the records$ RATIOF E+i(e)ce &) rec&r( <#s$ /e '#ll% (iscl&se( $& $*e p!r$ies0 20 NO0 - ,he dismissal of the first petition was clearl# 'ased on a technical matter rather than on the merits of the petition$ Hence% the dismissal of the petition with the factual issues hanging in mid-air cannot% under the circumstances% constitute res 6udicata$ Re!s&)i)"1 - 2or a 6udgment to 'e a 'ar to a su'se:uent case% the following re:uisites must concur1 $ $ $ (3) it must 'e a final 6udgment4 (5) the court which resolved it had 6urisdiction over the su'6ect matter and the parties4 (+) it must 'e a 6udgment on the merits4 and (K) there must 'e identit# 'etween the two cases% as to the parties% su'6ect matter and cause of action$ - ,he well-entrenched principle is that >a 6udgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which part# is right% as distinguished from a 6udgment rendered upon preliminar# or final or merel# technical point$> ((eang v$ .AC)$ - ,he protestation of Blorious "un of non-disclosure of evidence had 'een effectivel# remedied '# the su'se:uent accommodation '# the B, B of its re:uest for copies of the relevant documents$ - ,he petitioner claims that the su'se:uent disclosure of the documents '# B, B to Blorious "un in 3CEG cured the defect of non-disclosure of evidence in 3CEK under the constitutional provision of due process enunciated in the landmar/ case of Ang ,i'a# v$ C.R and other su'se:uent cases$ - ,he documents used '# the B, B in its 3CEK decision and referred to in the 3CEG decision as 'eing >intact> relates to what the B, B la'eled as (ocuments used '# B, B and >Additional (ocuments> which% as earlier discussed% were either not disclosed to Appellant for 'eing privileged or unmar/ed as e!hi'its or not presented in evidence$ - At an# rate% the conclusions of B, B as to the e!cessiveness of Appellant;s import prices drew a controverting statement from its own Raw Aaterials .mportation Regulation (ivision% - 2indings of administrative agencies are accorded respect and finalit#% and generall# should not 'e distur'ed '# the courts$ ,his general rule% however% is not without e!ceptions$ - As recentl# reiterated% it is 6urisprudentiall# settled that a'sent a clear% manifest and grave a'use of discretion amount to want of 6urisdiction% the findings of the administrative agenc# on matters falling within its competence will not 'e distur'ed '# the courts$ - "pecificall# with respect to factual findings% the# are accorded respect% if not finalit#% 'ecause of the special /nowledge and e!pertise gained '# these tri'unals from handling the specific matters falling under their 6urisdiction$ - "uch factual findings ma# 'e disregarded onl# if the# >are not supported '# evidence4 where the findings are initiated '# fraud% imposition or collussion4 where the procedures which lead to the factual findings are irregular4 when palpa'le errors are committed4 or when grave a'use of discretion ar'itrarines or capriciousness is manifest$> (Aapa v$ Arro#o% 3GD "CRA G- R3CECS) - .n the case at 'ar% the petitioner was never given the chance to present its side 'efore its e!port :uota allocations were revo/ed and its officers suspended$ 7hile it is true that such allocations as alleged '# the Board are mere privileges which it can revo/e and cancel as it ma# deem fit% these privileges have 'een accorded to petitioner for so long that the# have 'ecome impressed with propert# rights especiall# since

A2ERICAN INTER>FASHION CORPORATION +0 OFFICE OF THE PRESI-ENT, 8AR2ENTS D TEETI1E EEPORT 4OARD 81ORIOUS SUN FASHION 8AR2ENTS 2ANUFACTURIN8 CO0 3PHI1S05, INC0 16@ SCRA 7099 8UTIERREZ, :R09 2!% 23, 1991 N!$#reF Appe!l F!c$sF - B)8R.8?" was found guilt# of dollar-salting and misdeclaration of importations '# the B, B and% as a result of which% the e!port :uotas allocated to it were cancelled$ "oon after the rendition of the B, B decision% B)8R.8?" filed a petition for certiorari and prohi'ition with the Court% contending that its right to due process of law was violated% and that the B, B decision was not supported '# su'stantial evidence$ - Biving credence to the allegations of respondent B)8R.8?"% the Court issued a resolution ordering B, B to conduct further proceedings in the administrative case against respondent B)8R.8?"$ - However% B)8R.8?" filed a manifestation of its intention to withdraw the petition which the Court granted - B)8R.8?" filed another motion to dismiss with pre6udice% which was dul# noted '# the Court in a resolution$ - Aore than 5 #ears later% B)8R.8?" filed with the B, B a petition for the restitution of its e!port :uota allocation and re:uested for a reconsideration of the B, B decision dated April 5G% 3CEK$ - B)8R.8?" again alleged that the charges against it were not supported '# evidence$ - Aoreover% it alleged that the B, B decision canceling its e!port :uotas was rendered as a result of duress% threats% intimidation and undue influence e!ercised '# former Ainister Ro'erto @$ 8ngpin in order to transfer B)8R.8?"; e!port :uotas to >Aarcos cron#-owned> corporations (e "oleil Apparel Aanufacturing Corporation R("AS and A.2C$ - B)8R.8?" further alleged that it was coerced '# Ar$ Ro'erto 8ngpin to withdraw its petition and to enter into 6oint venture agreements paving the wa# for the creation of ("A and petitioner A.2C which were allowed to service B)8R.8?"; e!port :uotas and to use its plant facilities% machineries and e:uipment$ - B, B denied the petition of B)8R.8?"$ An appeal was then ta/en to the 8ffice of the President$ - At this point% A.2C sought to intervene in the proceedings and filed its opposition to B)8R.8?"; appeal claiming that the B, B decision has long 'ecome final% and that a favora'le action on the appeal would result in the forfeiture of the e!port :uotas which were legall# allocated to it$ - ,he 8ffice of the President ruled in favor of B)8R.8?"% finding the proceedings 'efore the B, B in 3CEK irregular% and remanded the case to B, B for further proceedings$ - ,he AR of A.2C was su'se:uentl# denied$ Iss#es1 3$ 789 the 822.C 82 ,H PR ".( 9, C8AA.,, ( BRA@ AB?" 82 (."CR ,.89 and

not onl# do these privileges determine the continued e!istence of the petitioner with assets of over PEH%HHH%HHH$HH 'ut also the livelihood of some GHH wor/ers who are emplo#ed '# the petitioner and their families $ -2inall#% American .nter-2ashion is hardl# the proper part# to :uestion the AalacaMang decision$ .t was incorporated after the incidents in this case happened$ .t was created o'viousl# to 'e the recipient of e!port :uotas ar'itraril# removed from the rightful owner$ .t was se:uestered precisel# 'ecause of the allegation that it is a cron# corporation which profited from an act of in6ustice inflicted on another private corporation$ Dispositive1 A2R is BRA9, ($ ,he instant petition is (."A."" ($ ,he :uestion decision and resolution of the 8ffice of the President are here'# A22.RA ($ Separate Opinion FE1ICIANO-concurring1 . concur in the result reached '# the Court% that is% that petitioner American .nter-fashion Corporation has failed to show an# grave a'use of discretion or act without or in e!cess of 6urisdiction on the part of the pu'lic respondent 8ffice of the President in rendering its decision in 8P Case 9o$ +GE3 dated G "eptem'er 3CEC$

PEFIANCO V0 2ORA1 322 SCRA 7399 4E11OSI11O9 :!) 19, 2000 NATURE Petition for review of decision of CA FACTS - "ec Pefianco of ( C" see/s to nullif# CA decision$ - !-"ec Bloria filed complaint against Aoral% Chief )i'rarian of 9ational )i'rar# for dishonest#% grave misconduct and conduct pre6udicial to the 'est interest of the service$ ,he complaint charged respondent Aoral with the pilferage of some historical documents$ - (oJ "pecial Prosecutor represented "ec Bloria in the administrative case$ Aoral was represented '# her private counsel$ "ec Bloria issued resolution finding Aoral guilt#$ "he was ordered dismissed$ - Aoral did not appeal 'ut filed a Petition for Production of ( C" .nvestigation Committee Report$ Her petition was twice denied$ - Aoral instituted an action for mandamus and in6unction 'efore regular courts against "ec Bloria pra#ing that she 'e furnished a cop# of the ( C" .nvestigation Committee Report and that the ( C" "ecretar# 'e en6oined from enforcing the order of dismissal until she received a cop# of the said report$ - "ecretar# Bloria moved to dismiss the mandamus case principall# for lac/ of cause of action% 'ut the trial court denied his motion$ ,hus% he elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on certiorari. CA sustained ,C$ - "ec Bloria filed instant petition$ "ec Bloria was replaced '# "ec Pefianco$ ISSUES 3$ 789 the order of the ,C is proper 5$ 789 Aoral is entitled to a cop# of the Report HE13$ 98$ - "ection +% Rule 3-% of the 0112 .ules of /ivil Procedure mandatoril# re:uires that the resolution on a motion to dismiss should clearl# and distinctl# state the reasons therefor$ - ,he challenged 8rder of the trial court dated 5+ April 3CCG falls short of the re:uirements prescri'ed in Rule 3-$ ,he 8rder merel# discussed the general concept of mandamus and the trial court&s 6urisdiction over the rulings and actions of administrative agencies without stating the 'asis wh# petitioner&s motion to dismiss was 'eing denied$ - Judges should ta/e pains in crafting their orders% stating therein clearl# and comprehensivel# the reasons for their issuance% which are necessar# for the full understanding of the action ta/en$ 7here the

court itself has not stated an# 'asis for its order% to 'e ver# strict in re:uiring a prior motion for reconsideration 'efore resort to higher courts on certiorari ma# 'e had% would 'e to e!pect too much$ "ince the 6udge himself was not precise and specific in his order% a certain degree of li'eralit# in e!acting from petitioner strict compliance with the rules was 6ustified$ 5$ 98$ - Mandamus is emplo#ed to compel the performance% when refused% of a ministerial dut#% this 'eing its main o'6ective$ .t does not lie to re:uire an#one to fulfill a discretionar# dut#$ .t is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must 'e the imperative dut# of the respondent to perform the act re:uired$ - .n her petition for mandamus% respondent misera'l# failed to demonstrate that she has a clear legal right to the "E/$ #nvestigation /ommittee .eport and that it is the ministerial dut# of petitioner ( C" "ecretar# to furnish her with a cop# thereof$ - Primaril#% respondent did not appeal to the Civil "ervice Commission the ( C" resolution dismissing her from the service$ B# her failure to do so% nothing prevented the ( C" resolution from 'ecoming final$ - Aoreover% there is no law or rule which imposes a legal dut# on petitioner to furnish respondent with a cop# of the investigation report$ 8n the contrar#% it was held in .ui3 v. "rilon that a respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to 'e informed of the findings and recommendations of an# investigating committee created to in:uire into charges filed against him$ He is entitled onl# to the administrative decision 'ased on su'stantial evidence made of record% and a reasona'le opportunit# to meet the charges and the evidence presented against her during the hearings of the investigation committee$ Respondent no dou't had 'een accorded these rights$ - Aore importantl#% the ( C" resolution is complete in itself for purposes of appeal to the Civil "ervice Commission% that is% it contains sufficient findings of fact and conclusion of law upon which respondent&s removal from office was grounded$ Disposition Petition is granted$

NAPO1CO2 V PO1ICE CHIEF INSPECTOR 1EONAR-O 4ERNA4E 80R0 N&0 1299179 PAR-O9 2!% 12, 2000 NATURE Appeal from the (ecision of the Court of Appeals FACTS - A newspaper pu'lished an article sa#ing that Berna'e headed a s#ndicate encashing treasur# warrants of PC soldiers% policemen% firemen and 6ail personnel who were alread# dead% on awol% suspended and separated from the service$ - President Ramos instructed the (.)B "ecretar# to conduct an investigation and prosecute respondent if necessar#$ ,he "ecretar# referred the directive to the P9P (irector Beneral% who ordered the Criminal .nvestigation "ervice Command to investigate the charges$ - Respondent was informed of the article and "*"upt$ Romeo Acop ordered him to e!plain through affidavit$ - Respondent su'mitted his affidavit alleging that all the cases against him were either dismissed '# the 8m'udsman or pending resolution% e!cept one which was pending 'efore the "andigan'a#an involving the encashment of G treasur# warrants$ C.C" (irector Angel Juizon su'mitted to the Chief% P9P% a memorandum confirming respondent&s allegations$ - B# command of the Police (eput# (irector Beneral% respondent was suspended from the police service for CH da#s$ "u'se:uentl#% he was given notice of complaint*charge and order to answer within D da#s from receipt of the complaint$ - Respondent filed a motion for 'ill of particulars$ - ,he C.C" su'mitted a manifestation asserting that the technical procedures o'tained in the regular courts are strictl# applica'le to administrative proceedings4 hence% the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to ena'le respondent to file an intelligent answer$

- ,he "ummar# (ismissal Hearing 8fficer issued a resolution recommending for respondent;s dismissal from the P9P service$ ,he P9P .nspector Beneral concurred with the recommendation of the "ummar# (ismissal 8fficer$ - ,he Chief P9P ordered the dismissal of respondent from the police service 'ecause of heading a pa#roll s#ndicate% une!plained assets or wealth% and falsification of pu'lic documents (falsified his transcript of records with P?P) - Respondent appealed to the 9AP8)C8A 9ational Appellate Board% which sustained the summar# dismissal of respondent from the P9P$ - Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review challenging his dismissal from the police service on the ground of lac/ of due process and the unconstitutionalit# of "ection K5% R$ A$ -CGD$ - After due proceedings% the CA promulgated its decision upholding the constitutionalit# of "ection K5% R$ A$ -CGD% 'ut setting aside the decision of the 9ational Appellate Board for failure to compl# with the due process re:uirement of the Constitution$ ISSUE 789 the CA erred in setting aside the decision of the 9ational Appellate Board% 9ational Police Commission% on the ground that respondent was denied due process in the conduct of the investigation of the charges filed against him HE1< "% the re:uirements of due process were sufficientl# complied with$ Ratio (ue process as a constitutional precept does not alwa#s and in all situations re:uire a trial-t#pe proceeding$ (ue process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunit# to e!plain or defend himself$ ,he essence of due process is simpl# to 'e heard% or as applied to administrative proceedings% an opportunit# to e!plain one;s side% or an opportunit# to see/ a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of$ Reasoning - Record shows that respondent was given notice of the complaints*charges against him and an opportunit# to answer$ He su'mitted an affidavit answering point '# point the charges against him$ He even appealed from the decision of the Chief% P9P dismissing him from the police service to the 9ational Appellate Board% and su'mitted a memorandum$ Conse:uentl#% he was given more than ade:uate opportunit# to e!plain his side$ Hence% there was no violation of his right to procedural and su'stantive due process$ Disposition Petition BRA9, ($