17/07/2019

Remedies in DEPED
Administrative Cases
APPEALS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DO 49, S. 2006 – REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES

APPEALS AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

DISCUSSANT
JOSEPH ROMMEL CORTEZ

1 2

3 4

5 6

1
 17/07/2019

7 8

APPEALS AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

9 10

11 12

2
 17/07/2019

APPEALS AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

13 14

15 16

APPEALS AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

17 18

3
 17/07/2019

19 20

21 22

23 24

4
 17/07/2019

25 26

27 28

29 30

5
 17/07/2019

31 32

33 34

35 36

6
 17/07/2019

37 38

39 40

41 42

7
 17/07/2019

SEC. 23. REVOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF

REGISTRATION, SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF THE
TEACHING PROFESSION, AND CANCELLATION OF TEMPORARY
OR SPECIAL PERMIT

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7836
AN ACT TO STRENGTHEN THE REGULATION AND SUPERVISION OF THE
PRACTICE OF TEACHING IN THE PHILIPPINES AND PRESCRIBING A LICENSURE
EXAMINATION FOR TEACHERS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
The Board shall have the power, after due notice and
hearing, to suspend or revoke the certificate of
registration of any registrant, to reprimand or to
cancel the temporary/special permit of a holder
thereof who is exempt from registration, for any of the
following causes:
(a) Conviction for any criminal offense by a court of
competent jurisdiction;
(b) Immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct;
(c) Declaration by a court of competent jurisdiction
for being mentally unsound or insane;

43 44

SEC. 23. REVOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF

REGISTRATION, SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF THE
TEACHING PROFESSION, AND CANCELLATION OF TEMPORARY The decision of the Board to
OR SPECIAL PERMIT
(d) Malpractice, gross incompetence, gross negligence or
revoke or suspend a certificate
serious ignorance of the practice of the teaching
profession;
may be appealed to the
(e) The use of or perpetration of any fraud or deceit in regional trial court of the place
obtaining a certificate of registration, professional license
or special/temporary permit; where the Board holds office
(f) Chronic inebriety or habitual use of drugs;
(g) Violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the rules
within fifteen (15) days from
and regulations and other policies of the Board and the
Commission, and the code of ethical and professional
receipt of the said decision or
standards for professional teachers; and
(h) Unjustified or willful failure to attend seminars,
of the denial of the motion for
workshops, conferences and the like or the continuing
education program prescribed by the Board and the
reconsideration filed in due
Commission. time.

45 46

RULE XIV SECTION 2

PRC: 2017 REVISED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RULES AND REGULATIONS • A party aggrieved by the decision, order
IN ADMINISTRATIVE or resolution may file a motion for
reconsideration within fifteen (15) days
INVESTIGATIONS from receipt of the decision, order or
APPEALS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
resolution.
• Only one motion for reconsideration shall
be allowed. A second or subsequent
motion for reconsideration shall not be
allowed and shall not stop the running
of the reglementary period to appeal

47 48

8

RULE XIV SECTION 2
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
• No motion for reconsideration shall be allowed
unless it is for any of the following causes:
(a) Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
which ordinary prudence could not have guarded
against and by reason of which the aggrieved party has
probably been impaired of his rights;
(b) Newly discovered evidence which he could not,
with reasonable diligence, have discovered and
produced at the hearing, and which if presented would
probably alter the results thereof; or
(c) Imposition of excessive penalty, or insufficiency of
the evidence to justify the decision, or the decision is
against the law or not in accordance with the facts
presented.
A motion to extend the reglementary period to file a
motion for reconsideration shall not be allowed.
49
SECTION 2. PLEADINGS ALLOWED
ON APPEAL
The only pleadings allowed on appeal
are the appeal memorandum,
counter-memorandum and
memorandum decisions by both parties.
Unless otherwise directed by the
Commission, no other pleadings shall be
allowed, and the filing thereof shall not
stay the period for the resolution of the
appeal.
51
REMEDIES IN CSC
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
APPEALS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
53
17/07/2019
RULE XV SECTION 1
APPEAL
• The decision, order or resolution of the Board that
completely disposes of the case shall be final and
executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from
receipt thereof without an appeal being
undertaken by either party.
• The aggrieved party may file a notice of appeal
to the Commission together with the appeal
memorandum, copy furnished the adverse party,
within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the decision, order or resolution,
and shall pay the appeal and legal research fees.
The appellant shall be required to submit a
counter• memorandum
50
SECTION 8. DECISION IN
APPEALED CASES
The decision, order or resolution of
the Commission shall become final
and executory within fifteen (15)
days from receipt thereof, unless
appealed to the Court of Appeals
by way of a Petition for Review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
52
54
9
 17/07/2019

55 56

57 58

59 60

10
 17/07/2019

1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

AS AMENDED
(RULES 1-71, RULES OF COURT)
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1997

Per Resolution of the Supreme Court in Bar Matter No. 803 Adopted in
Baguio City on April 8, 1997

61 62

RULE 41 SECTION 1. NO APPEAL MAY BE

APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS
• (a) Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction
shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the
judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the
adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special
proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where law on
these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and
served in like manner.
• (b) Petition for review. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.
• (c) Appeal by certiorari. — In all cases where only questions of law are
raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for
review on certiorari in accordance with the Rule 45. (n)
TAKEN FROM
• (a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;
• (b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief
from judgment;
• (c) An interlocutory order;
• (d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
• (e) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent,
confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any
other ground vitiating consent;
• (f) An order of execution;
• (g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or
in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints,
while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal
therefrom; and
• (h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.

63 64

SECTION 3. PERIOD OF ORDINARY

SECTION 13. DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
APPEAL
• The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the judgment or final order •Prior to the transmittal of the
appealed from. Where a record on appeal is
required, the appellant shall file a notice of
original record or the record on
appeal and a record on appeal within thirty appeal to the appellate court,
(30) days from notice of the judgment or final
order. the trial court may motu
• The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a
timely motion for new trial or reconsideration.
propio or on motion dismiss the
No motion for extension of time to file a motion appeal for having been taken
for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.
(n) out of time. (14a)

65 66

11
 17/07/2019

RULE 43
APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES
RULE 45
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT
SECTION 1. This Rule shall apply to appeals • Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme
from judgments or final orders of the Court Court. — A party desiring to appeal
of Tax Appeals and from awards, by certiorari from a judgment or final
judgments, final orders or resolutions of or order or resolution of the Court of
authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Regional Trial Court or other courts
Among these agencies are the Civil whenever authorized by law, may file with
Service Commission, Central Board of the Supreme Court a verified petition for
Assessment Appeals, Securities and review on certiorari. The petition shall raise
Exchange Commission, Office of the only questions of law which must be
President… distinctly set forth. (1a, 2a)

67 68

RULE 52
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
• Section 1. Period for filing. — A party may file a motion for reconsideration of
a judgment or final resolution within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof,
with proof of service on the adverse party. (n)
• Section 2. Second motion for reconsideration. — No second motion for
THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL
reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be PROCEDURE
entertained. (n)
(As amended, December 1, 2000)
• Section 3. Resolution of motion. — In the Court of Appeals, a motion for
reconsideration shall be resolved within ninety (90) days from the date when
the court declares it submitted for resolution. (n)
• Section 4. Stay of execution. — The pendency of a motion for
reconsideration filed on time and by the proper party shall stay the
execution of the judgment or final resolution sought to be reconsidered
unless the court, for good reasons, shall otherwise direct. (n)

69 70

RULE 123 RULE 124

PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF
COURTS APPEALS
•Section 1. Uniform Procedure. — The • Section 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or
failure to prosecute. — The Court of Appeals may,
procedure to be observed in the upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within
the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the
Courts shall be the same as in the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.
Regional Trial Courts, except where a • The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the
particular provision applies only to appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the
either of said courts and in criminal appellant escapes from prison or confinement,
jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the
cases governed by the Revised Rule on pendency of the appeal. (8a)
Summary Procedure. (1a)

71 72

12
 17/07/2019

SAMPLE CASE
FACTS OF THE
G.R. No. 183678 March 15, 2010
CASE
RENE VENTENILLA PUSE, Petitioner,
vs.
LIGAYA DELOS SANTOS-PUSE, Respondent.

73 74

FACTS • Before this Court is a FACTS • Petitioner is a registered

Petition for Review on Professional Teacher stationed at
OF THE OF THE S. Aguirre Elementary School,
Certiorari with Prayer for
CASE Injunction and Temporary
CASE East District, Jose Panganiban,
Restraining Order filed by Camarines Norte, while
respondent is a Barangay Rural
petitioner Rene V. Puse
Health Midwife assigned at the
assailing the Decision dated
Municipal Health Office of Jose
28 March 2008 of the Court
Panganiban, Camarines Norte.
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 100421

75 76

FACTS • It appears that on 10 January 1992,

petitioner married respondent Ligaya
OF THE Delos Santos-Puse at the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) of Daet, Camarines Norte
CASE before the Hon. Judge Oscar T. Osorio. He
had two (2) children with her, and had a
church wedding before respondent found
out that petitioner was already married.
Respondent discovered that petitioner
had already gotten married to Cristina
Pablo Puse at the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities of Laoag City, Ilocos Norte on 27
December 1986. Respondent likewise
learned that he has two (2) children with
his first wife.
FACTS • Thus, on 2 August 2005, respondent
filed a letter-complaint with the
OF THE Director of the Professional
CASE Regulation Commission (PRC),
National Capital Region, Manila,
through the Director, PRC, Lucena
City, seeking assistance regarding
her husband against whom she had
filed a criminal case for "Bigamy" and
"Abandonment." She alleged that
her husband has not been giving her
and their children support.

77 78

13
 17/07/2019

• In a letter dated 16 August 2005, petitioner was

directed by the PRC of Lucena City to answer the
complaint for immorality and dishonorable
conduct filed by respondent. Per directive,
FACTS petitioner submitted his Compliance dated 31 FACTS • In her Reply to
Answer/Compliance dated 6
OF THE August 2005 denying the charges against him. He OF THE September 2005, respondent said
adopted his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of
CASE his witnesses, Jocelyn Puse Decena and CASE she married petitioner in good faith,
Dominador I. Blanco, which were submitted in unaware that he was already
Criminal Case Nos. 7228 and 7229 before the married to Cristina N. Pablo. When
MTC of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte. He she learned of petitioner’s deception
argued that if respondent’s allegations were true, regarding his marital status, she filed
she herself would be equally guilty of immorality a case for Bigamy before the MTC
and dishonorable conduct, as she was fully aware of Jose Panganiban, Camarines
that petitioner was already married when she Norte, which found probable cause
married him. He added he has not abandoned
to hold petitioner for trial.
respondent or their children and continually gives
support for their children.

79 80

• She found petitioner’s explanation "Na ako

ay wala ng balita o komunikasyon sa aking
unang asawa at ang paniwala ko ay siya ay
FACTS patay na at ang aking kasal ay nawala ng
saysay" to be lame and insufficient to
FACTS • In his Rejoinder dated 11
OF THE OF THE October 2005, petitioner
justify his contracting a subsequent
reiterated the arguments in
CASE bigamous marriage. She claimed that CASE his Answer and prayed for
petitioner should have instituted in court a
summary proceeding for the declaration the dismissal of the
of presumptive death of his first wife complaint on the ground
before contracting a subsequent marriage. that it was not verified and
In the absence of such declaration, her
for failure of the respondent
marriage to petitioner is bigamous and
void ab initio. She added that the affidavits to attach a valid certification
of his sister and close friend should not be against forum-shopping.
given weight.

81 82

FACTS • After due consideration of the FACTS •On 16 February 2007,

complaint, affidavits, supporting
OF THE documents and pleadings filed, OF THE the Board of Professional
CASE the Board of Professional CASE Teachers (Board), PRC,
Teachers, PRC, Lucena City, found
a prima facie case for Immorality Manila, found petitioner
and Dishonorable Conduct administratively liable of
against petitioner, and directed
respondent to pay docket and
the charges and revoked
legal research fees.The case was his license as a
docketed as Adm. Case No. LCN-
0016.
Professional Teacher.

83 84

14
 17/07/2019

FACTS • The dispositive portion of the Resolution

reads:
OF THE • IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the

CASE Board finds Rene Ventenilla Puse guilty as

charged and accordingly revokes his
license as a Professional Teacher. He is
FINDINGS/DECISIONS
ordered to surrender his Certificate of
Registration and his Professional
Identification Card to the Professional
Regulation Commission within ten (10)
days from the time this decision becomes
final and executory and to desist from the
practice of the teaching profession under
the pain of criminal prosecution.

85 86

• The Board ruled that contrary to petitioner’s contentions, it had
jurisdiction over petitioner and could validly order the
revocation of his license, as petitioner was a professional teacher.
Under Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7836, otherwise known as
the Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994, the Board
has the power and authority to regulate the practice of teaching
PROFESSIONAL
in the Philippines. The charge of Immorality and/or Dishonorable
REGULATION Conduct is also one (1) of the grounds for the revocation or
COMMISSION suspension of a license of a professional teacher. For entering
DECISION into a second marriage without first seeking a judicial declaration
of the presumptive death of his first wife and thereafter
cohabiting with his second wife and having children with her,
petitioner is liable for Immorality and Dishonorable Conduct. The
Board added that whether respondent had knowledge of the first
marriage or not is irrelevant and further found petitioner’s claim
that his cohabitation with respondent was under duress, force or
intimidation untenable. Citing Section 3, Article III and Section 3,
Article XI of the Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers, and
the Oath of Professionals, the Board also explained that
petitioner’s official life cannot be detached from his personal life,
contrary to his contention that the acts complained of were
purely private. His immorality and dishonorable conduct
demonstrate his unfitness to continue practicing his profession as
he is no longer the embodiment of a role model for young
elementary school pupils, the Board ruled.
• Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decision but his
motion was denied by the Board per Resolution dated 9 July
2007.
• Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for review, docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 100421, before the Court of Appeals assailing the
Resolutions dated 16 February 2007 and 9 July 2007 of the
Board.
• On 28 March 2008, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s
COURT OF appeal.The appellate court held that the applicable law was Rep.
APPEALS Act No. 4670 or the Magna Carta for Public School
DECISION Teachers because petitioner was occupying the position of
Teacher I at the S. Aguirre Elementary School. Under Rep. Act No.
4670, the one (1) tasked to investigate the complaint was the
Board of Professional Teachers. Thus, it was the Board of
Professional Teachers that had jurisdiction over the administrative
case and not the Civil Service Commission (CSC) or the
Department of Education (DepEd) as contended by petitioner. As
to the finding of immorality and/or dishonorable conduct, the
Court of Appeals agreed with the Board in finding as untenable
petitioner’s excuse that he believed his first wife to be dead and
that his first marriage was no longer subsisting. It said that
petitioner should have applied for a judicial order declaring his
first wife presumptively dead before marrying respondent. It
further found without merit petitioner’s defense that the
complaint is of a private nature, explaining that his actions relate
to the very nature of his career: to teach, mold and guide the
youth to moral righteousness.

87 88

• On 30 June 2008, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion

for reconsideration for lack of merit. Hence, the present recourse.
• We do not agree. An administrative case
• Petitioner argues that: against a public school teacher may be filed
• I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN before the Board of Professional Teachers-
VALIDATING THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD FOR
COURT PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS OF PRC-MANILA DESPITE THE LACK
THE SC
PRC, the DepEd or the CSC, which have
DECISION
OF OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SAME AND ITS
PATENT NULLITY FOR HAVING BEEN ISSUED OUTSIDE OF ITS FOR concurrent jurisdiction over administrative
APPEALS JURISDICTION AND IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF YOUR
PETITIONER TO DUE PROCESS;
ARGUMENT cases such as for immoral, unprofessional or
DECISION • II. THE HONORABLE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS OF
1 dishonorable conduct.
THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (PRC)-
MANILA AND LUCENA CITY, GRAVELY ERRED AND • The body or agency that first takes cognizance
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION,WHEN IT
ASSUMED PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE UNVERIFIED of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to
COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT IN CONTRAVENTION
WITH EXISTING RULES AND SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE the exclusion of the others.22 Here, it was the
MATTER;
Board of Professional Teachers, before which
• III. THE HONORABLE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS
OF THE PRC-MANILA GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE respondent filed the complaint, that acquired
PETITIONER GUILTY OF IMMORALITY AND DISHONORABLE
CONDUCT AND SUBSEQUENTLY REVOKING HIS TEACHER’S jurisdiction over the case and which had the
LICENSE AS A PENALTY NOTWITHSTANDING THE LACK OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUSTAINING THE COMPLAINT, authority to proceed and decide the case to
WHICH IN EFFECT VIOLATED THE RIGHT OF YOUR PETITIONER
TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.17
the exclusion of the DepEd and the CSC.

89 90

15

• Petitioner’s contentions are without merit.
• Petitioner’s allegation of improper venue
and the fact that the complaint was not
SC DECISION under oath are not sufficient grounds for
FOR
ARGUMENT the dismissal of the complaint. Well to
11 remember, the case was an administrative
case and as such, technical rules of
procedure are liberally applied. In
administrative cases, technical rules of
procedure and evidence are not strictly
applied and administrative due process
cannot be fully equated with due process
in its strict judicial sense.The intention is
to resolve disputes brought before such
bodies in the most expeditious and
inexpensive manner possible.
91
SC DECISION • Under the circumstances, we find the
FOR THE penalty imposed by the Board PROPER.
APPEAL
• WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED. The Decision dated 28
March 2008 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 100421 is AFFIRMED.
• With costs against petitioner.
• SO ORDERED.
93
17/07/2019
• It must be remembered, however, that petitioner was
charged before the Board of Professional Teachers
under Rep. Act No. 7836 and not under Civil Service
Law, Rules and Regulations. Under Section 23 of Rep.
SC DECISION Act No. 7836, the Board has the power to suspend
FOR or revoke the certificate of registration of any teacher
ARGUMENT for any causes mentioned in said section, one (1) of
3 which is immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable
conduct. The Board has the discretion, taking into
account the circumstances obtaining, to impose the
penalty of suspension or revocation. In the imposition
of the penalty, the Board is not guided by Section 22 of
Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and
Regulations which provides for suspension for six (6)
months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first
offense, and dismissal for the second offense for
disgraceful and immoral conduct. Petitioner, therefore,
cannot insist that Section 22 be applied to him in the
imposition of his penalty, because the Board’s basis is
Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7836 which does not
consider whether the offense was committed the first
or second time.
92
16