Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
352
353
negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or giving any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of
his functions. As discussed above, Saunar’s action was not
tantamount to inexcusable or gross negligence considering that
there was no intention to abandon his duty as an NBI officer.
354
MARTIRES, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse
and set aside the 20 October 2008 Decision1 and the 17
February 2009 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 100157 which affirmed the 19 January
2007 decision3 of the Office of the President (OP)
dismissing petitioner Carlos R. Saunar (Saunar) from
government service.
The Facts
Saunar was a former Regional Director of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI), which he joined as an agent
in 1988. Through the years, he rose from the ranks and
eventually became the Chief of the Anti-Graft Division.
During his time as chief of the said division, Saunar
conducted an official investigation regarding the alleged
corruption relative to the tobacco excise taxes and involving
then Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, former President
Joseph E. Estrada (President Estrada), and former Senator
Jinggoy Estrada. President Estrada’s assailed involvement
in the tobacco excise tax issue became one of the predicate
crimes included in his indictment for plunder.4
In Special Order No. 40035 dated 27 August 2004,
Saunar was reassigned as regional director for Western
Mindanao based in Zamboanga City. During his stint as
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
_______________
355
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
_______________
356
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
Saunar moved for reconsideration but it was denied by
the OP in its 12 June 2007 resolution.11 Undeterred, he
appealed before the CA.
_______________
10 Id., at p. 172.
11 Id., at pp. 173-174.
357
Saunar moved for reconsideration but it was denied by
the CA in its assailed 17 February 2009 resolution.
Hence, this appeal raising the following:
Issues
I
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER
_______________
12 Id., at p. 18.
358
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
_______________
13 Id., at p. 66.
359
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
In Goldberg, the U.S. Supreme Court went on to
highlight the importance of confronting the witnesses
presented against the claimant, viz.:
_______________
360
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
_______________
18 Id.
361
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
_______________
362
It is true that in both Arnett and Mathews, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that due process was not violated due
to the lack of a formal hearing before the employee was
dismissed and welfare benefits were cancelled in the
respective cases. Nevertheless, in both cases it was
recognized that the aggrieved party had the opportunity for
a hearing to settle factual or evidentiary disputes in
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
_______________
21 Citations omitted.
22 White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, 596 Phil. 444, 461; 576
SCRA 416, 433-434 (2009).
23 Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippiness: A
Commentary, p. 114 (2003).
24 69 Phil. 635 (1940).
363
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
364
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
365
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
_______________
25 Id., at pp. 641-644.
366
the investigating officer was not set for hearing before the
Court of Industrial Relations because during the
investigation stage, the parties were given the opportunity
to cross-examine and present their side to the case. It is
noteworthy that in both cases due process was observed
because the parties were given the chance for a hearing
where they could confront the witnesses against them.
In Gas Corporation of the Phils. v. Minister Inciong,28
the Court explained that there is no denial of due process
when a party is afforded the right to cross-examine the
witnesses but fails to exercise the same, to wit:
1. The vigor with which counsel for petitioner
pressed the claim that there was a denial of
procedural due process is inversely proportional
to the merit of this certiorari and prohibition
suit as is quite evident from the Comment of the
Office of the Solicitor General. It is undoubted
that the due process mandate must be
satisfied by an administrative tribunal or
agency. So it was announced by Justice
Laurel in the landmark case of Ang Tibay v.
Court of Industrial Relations. That is still
good law. It follows, therefore, that if
procedural due process were in fact denied, then
this petition must prosper. It is equally well-
settled, however, that the
_______________
367
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
_______________
368
Thus, while the Court in Arboleda recognized that the
lack of a formal hearing does not necessarily transgress the
due process guarantee, it did not however regard the
formal hearing as a mere superfluity. It continued that it is
a procedural right that may be invoked by the party. It is
true that in subsequent cases,32 the Court reiterated that a
formal hearing is not obligatory in administrative
proceedings because the due process requirement is
satisfied if the parties are given the opportunity to explain
their respective sides through position papers or pleadings.
Nonetheless, the idea that a formal hearing is not
indispensable should not be hastily thrown around by
administrative bodies.
A closer perusal of past jurisprudence shows that the
Court did not intend to trivialize the conduct of a formal
hearing but merely afforded latitude to administrative
bodies especially in cases where a party fails to invoke the
right to hearing or is given the opportunity but opts not to
avail of it. In the landmark case of Ang Tibay, the Court
explained that administrative bodies are free from a strict
application of technical rules of procedure and are given
sufficient leeway. In the said case, however, nothing was
said that the freedom included the setting aside of a
hearing but merely to allow matters which would
ordinarily be incompetent or inadmissible in the usual
judicial proceedings.
_______________
369
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
_______________
370
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
x x x x
Petitioner’s right to a formal investigation was not
satisfied when the complaint against him was
decided on the basis of position papers. There is
nothing in the Local Government Code and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations nor in A.O. No. 23
that provide that administrative cases against elective local
officials can be decided on the basis of position papers. A.O.
No. 23 states that the Investigating Authority may require
the parties to submit their respective memoranda but this is
only after formal investigation and hearing. A.O. No. 23
does not authorize the Investigating Authority to
dispense with a hearing especially in cases involving
allegations of fact which are not only in contrast but
contradictory to each other. These contradictions are
best settled by allowing the examination and cross-
examination of witnesses. Position papers are
oftentimes prepared with the assistance of lawyers
and their artful preparation can make the discovery
of truth difficult. The jurisprudence cited by the DILG in
its order denying petitioner’s motion for a formal
investigation applies to appointive officials and employees.
Administrative disciplinary proceedings against elective
government officials are not exactly similar to those against
appointive officials. In fact, the provisions that apply to
elective local officials are separate and distinct from
appointive government officers and employees. This can be
gleaned from the Local Government Code itself.35
(emphases and underlining supplied)
_______________
371
372
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
Under the PAGC rules of procedure, it is crystal clear
that the conduct of clarificatory hearings is discretionary.
Nevertheless, in the event that it finds the necessity to
conduct one, there are rules to be followed. One, the parties
are to be notified of the clarificatory hearings. Two, the
parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be present in
the hearings without
373
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
374
_______________
36 Municipality of Butig, Lanao del Sur v. Court of Appeals, 513 Phil.
217, 235; 477 SCRA 115, 132 (2005).
37 Masadao, Jr. v. Glorioso, 345 Phil. 859, 864; 280 SCRA 612, 616
(1997); Loyao, Jr. v. Manatad, 387 Phil. 337, 344; 331 SCRA 324, 330
(2000); Leave Division-O.A.S., Office of the Court Administrator v.
Sarceno, 754 Phil. 1, 11; 750 SCRA 582, 592-593 (2015).
375
_______________
38 Office of the Ombudsman v. Delos Reyes, Jr., 745 Phil. 366, 381; 738
SCRA 240, 256 (2014).
39 Rollo, p. 484.
376
_______________
40 Consigna v. People, 731 Phil. 108, 123-124; 720 SCRA 350, 366
(2014).
41 Rollo, p. 637.
42 G.R. No. 197634, November 28, 2016, 810 SCRA 501.
377
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
378
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
379
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/31
8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 848
As it stands, Saunar should have been entitled to full
backwages from the time he was illegally dismissed until
his reinstatement. In view of his retirement, however,
reinstatement is no longer feasible. As such, the backwages
should be computed from the time of his illegal dismissal
up to his compulsory retirement.43 In addition, Saunar is
entitled to receive the retirement benefits he should have
received if he were not illegally dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The 20
October 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R.
S.P. No. 100157 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner Carlos R. Saunar is entitled to full backwages
from the time of his illegal dismissal until his retirement
and to receive his retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
43 Paz v. Northern Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc., 754 Phil. 251; 751
SCRA 99 (2015).
380
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c70e68ebfef230ce7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/31