SPECIAL REQUIREMENT

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mark Michael M. Resuello

LLB 4, College of Law
University Of Cagayan Valley

TOMAS G. VELASQUEZ, et. al, petitioners,

vs.

HELEN B. HERNANDEZ, respondent.

[G.R. No. 151095. August 31, 2004]

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Tomas G. Velasquez, Officer-In-Charge, Office of the School

Superintendent, DECS Division of Abra, was informed of the alleged
infractions committed by respondent, Helen B. Hernandez, such as
soliciting, accepting, and receiving sums of money, in exchange for
transfer or promotion of complainant teachers. Acting on the letter,
petitioner Velasquez convened a fact-finding committee to
determine the veracity of the alleged violations of respondent and
to render a formal report and recommendation.

The Committee issued an Investigation Report recommending the

filing of administrative and criminal complaints against respondent. A
formal charge for Grave Misconduct, Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service, Abuse of Authority, and Violation of
Section 22 (k) Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 and
other related laws was filed against respondent in the Civil Service
Commission

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Abra issued

a Resolution which arose from the sworn complaints filed by the
complaining teachers, for violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act No.
3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mark Michael M. Resuello

LLB 4, College of Law
University Of Cagayan Valley

The CSC found respondent Hernandez guilty of dishonesty and

grave misconduct and ordered her dismissal from the service, with all
the accessory penalties including her perpetual disqualification from
holding public office.

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman charged respondent with

direct bribery. However, upon motion, the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman set aside its Review Action and ordered the withdrawal
of Information for direct bribery filed against respondent.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not the CSC erred in assuming jurisdiction and/or in

rendering judgment adverse to her;

2) Whether or not the CSC erred in rendering judgment against her

in violation of her right to due process in administrative proceedings

RULING:

1. It is significant to note that the action filed before the CSC-CAR is

administrative in nature, dealing as it does with the proper
administrative liability, if any, which may have been incurred by
respondent for the commission of the acts complained of. In stark
contrast, the case filed before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
for Luzon, which incidentally was not initiated by herein petitioners
but by the complainant teachers, deals with the criminal
accountability of the respondent for violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mark Michael M. Resuello

LLB 4, College of Law
University Of Cagayan Valley

2. Respondent can hardly be said to have been deprived of due

process as she was given the chance to answer the charges, to
submit countervailing evidence, and to cross-examine the witnesses
against her. The mere fact that respondent questioned the
impartiality of the fact finding committee will not automatically result
in a denial of due process because what matters is that respondent
had actively participated in the proceedings against her.
 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mark Michael M. Resuello

LLB 4, College of Law
University Of Cagayan Valley

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION (NAPOLCOM) NATIONAL APPELLATE

BOARD (SECOND DIVISION) and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
(PNP), petitioners,
vs.
POLICE CHIEF INSPECTOR LEONARDO BERNABE, respondent.

G.R. No. 129914 May 12, 2000

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Chief PNP ordered the dismissal of respondent from the police
service based on the findings of the Criminal Investigation Service
Command (CICS) that the respondent is in the head of the payroll
syndicate responsible for the encashing of PC/INP treasury warrants
for personnel on leave, AWOL, deceased or terminated from the
police service and that respondent has unexplained wealth.

Respondent appealed to the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board

but found its appeal unmeritorious.

Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review

challenging his dismissal from the police service on the ground of
lack of due process. The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision
setting aside the decision of the National Appellate Board for failure
to comply with the due process requirement of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Police Chief Inspector Leonardo Bernabe was

denied due process in the conduct of the investigation of the
charges filed against him.
 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mark Michael M. Resuello

LLB 4, College of Law
University Of Cagayan Valley

RULING:

Due process as a constitutional precept does not always and in all

situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied
when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an
opportunity to explain or defend himself. The essence of due process
is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of."

In this case, the record shows that respondent was given notice of
the complaints/charges against him and an opportunity to answer.
He submitted an affidavit answering point by point the charges
against him. He even appealed from the decision of the Chief, PNP
dismissing him from the police service to the National Appellate
Board, and submitted a memorandum.
 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mark Michael M. Resuello

LLB 4, College of Law
University Of Cagayan Valley

PO2 RUEL C. MONTOYA, Petitioner,

vs.
POLICE DIRECTOR REYNALDO P. VARILLA, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, POLICE OFFICE and
ATTY. RUFINO JEFFREY L. MANERE, REGIONAL LEGAL AFFAIRS
SERVICE, Respondents.

G.R. No. 180146 December 18, 2008

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Montoya, a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) had

been absent without official leave (AWOL) for a period of 67 days.
Four months after he was dropped from the rolls, Montoya filed a
Motion for Reconsideration thereof explaining that he went to the
Baler Police Station/Police Station 2 to have his Sick Leave Form
approved by the station commander.

Montoya was preventively suspended for 30 days pending Summary

Proceedings of his administrative liability and was eventually
dismissed from the police service for Serious Neglect of Duty (due to
AWOL). The 67 days when Montoya went on absence without leave
(AWOL) were immediately deducted from his leave credits.

Allegedly unassisted by counsel, Montoya filed with the Central

Police District office a Petition for Review/Motion for Reconsideration
but was denied for lack of jurisdiction, since a disciplinary action
involving demotion or dismissal from service imposed by a PNP
 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mark Michael M. Resuello

LLB 4, College of Law
University Of Cagayan Valley

regional director may only be appealed to the Regional Appellate

Board (RAB).

Montoya next filed an appeal of the Decision of the NCR Regional

Director before the RAB of the National Capital Region (RAB-NCR),
alleging lack of due process considering that he was not even
notified of any hearing by the Summary Hearing Officer and was
thus deprived of the opportunity to present evidence in his defense.

Thereafter, the NCR Regional Director authorized Police Senior

Superintendent Manere to appeal several RAB-NCR decisions
involving different police officers, including the Montoya case,
before the Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG). DILG Secretary Jose D. Lina, Jr. issued an Order denying the
appeal of the NCR Regional Director.

Subsequently, the CSC issued a Resolution which recognized the

right of the PNP disciplining authorities to appeal the decision of the
RAB-NCR to the DILG. The CSC set aside Order of DILG Secretary Lina
and affirmed the decisions of the NCR Regional Director dismissing
Montoya, et al., from police service. According to the CSC, Montoya
was guilty of laches and abandonment of his position. It also held
that the Decision of the RAB-NCR on Montoya’s case, affirmed by
DILG Secretary Lina, was based on mere affidavits which were not
substantiated.
 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mark Michael M. Resuello

LLB 4, College of Law
University Of Cagayan Valley

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the modes of appeal resorted to in the case is

proper and valid;

2. Whether or not Montoya was denied the right to due process.

RULING:

1. Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,

before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is
a pre-condition that he should have availed himself of all the
means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a
remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted
to by giving the administrative officer concerned every
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his
jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before
courts judicial power can be sought. The administrative agency
concerned is in the best position to correct any previous error
committed in its forum.

Montoya’s reliance on the doctrine of exhaustion of

administrative remedies is misplaced, for said doctrine does not
find application in the instant case. The doctrine intends to
preclude premature resort from a quasi-judicial administrative
body to the court. Such is not the situation in this case. Montoya is
questioning the supposed premature resort of the NCR Regional
Director from the decision of the DILG Secretary to the CSC,
instead of to the Office of the President; obviously, he is
challenging the resort from one administrative body to another.
 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mark Michael M. Resuello

LLB 4, College of Law
University Of Cagayan Valley

PNP personnel fall under the administrative control and

supervision of the DILG, which, in turn, is under the administrative
control and supervision of the CSC.

It is already explicitly provided in Section 45 of the DILG Act of

1990 that the decision of the Regional Director imposing upon a
PNP member the administrative penalty of demotion or dismissal
from the service is appealable to the RAB. From the RAB
Decision, the aggrieved party may then appeal to the DILG
Secretary.

2. In the instant case, the Summary Dismissal Proceedings against

Montoya were flawed from the very beginning when these were
conducted without due notice to him. Without notice, Montoya
was unable to attend the hearings, present written or oral
arguments, and submit evidence in his favor; he was completely
deprived of the opportunity to be heard on the administrative
charges against him and was irrefragably denied due process.

The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic

constitutional rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The
violation of a party’s right to due process raises a serious
jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded
at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process
is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void
for lack of jurisdiction. The rule must be equally true for quasi-
judicial administrative bodies, for the constitutional guarantee
that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process is unqualified by what type of proceedings (whether
 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mark Michael M. Resuello

LLB 4, College of Law
University Of Cagayan Valley

judicial or administrative) he stands to lose the same.

Consequently, the Decision of the NCR Regional Director
dismissing Montoya from service is void for having been rendered
in violation of the latter’s due process.