LUPO vs. Administrative Action Board The requirements of due process in administrative proceedings and these are: (1) the right to a hearing which includes, the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have something to support itself, (4) the evide evidence nce must be subst substanti antial, al, and subst substanti antial al evid evidence ence means such evidence as a reaso reasonable nable mind must accept as adequate to support a conclusion; () the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (!) the tribunal or bod" or an" of its #udges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controvers" controvers",, and not simpl" accept the views of a subordinate; ($) the board or bod" should in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can %now the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered&
epublic of the hilippines SUPREE !OURT anila *+-./ /00*0-. ".R. #o. $%&$' Septem(er )&* +%%, AR-A B. LUPO* petitioner, vs A-#-STRAT-/E A-#-STRA T-/E A!T-O# BOAR 0AAB1 0epartment of Transportation 2 !ommunications Repu(3ic of the Phi3ippines1 and 4UST-!E O#O5RE A. /-LLALU6* respondents& Baga, Castronuevo, Balitaan & Associates for petitioner.
PARAS* J.: 0n this petition for prohibition, petitioner see%s the issuance of an order or writ of prohibition which would direct public respondents dministrative dministrative ction oard and hairman -nofre & illalu to permanentl" desist from assuming #urisdiction over dm& ase .o& 5634577 until the same is finall" disposed of b" the 8elecoms 8elecoms -ffice, egion at 9egaspi it" and to refrain from issuing orders setting the aforecited case for hearing& etitioner substantiall" assails the esolution dated *eptember 36, 1:77 of then *ecretar" ainerio -& e"es of the /epartment of 8ransportation and ommunications which suspended her for one "ear and disqualified her for promotion for a period of one "ear and also, the -rder of ul" , 1:7: of
hairman -nofre & illalu of the dministrative ction oard of said department which set dm& ase .o& 5634577 for trial& 8he prefator" facts are< -n .ovember , 1:7$, =ructuoso & rro"o, -0>/-, essage enter and then /- of 8elecom -ffice stationed at uhi, amarines *ur, filed a complaint for /ishonest" 8hru =alsification (ultiple) of -fficial /ocuments against aria & 9upo, herein petitioner, as hief of ersonnel *ection, 8elecom -ffice, egion at 9egaspi it"& 8he complaint was based on the alleged e?clusion of several names from the ertification (on the list of emplo"ees) submitted b" petitioner in compliance with a onfidential emorandum of /irector laro orante& 8he aforesaid complaint was actuall" triggered off b" the inquir" of 0gnacio & rro"o, brother of complainant =ructuoso & rro"o, into the alleged illegal termination of the former's niece, .enita rro"o .oceda, as a dail" wage cler% at uhi 8elecom +?change in amarines *ur, in violation of a contract previousl" entered into between a certain @loria /& alermo, lot donor and former ureau /irector eferino *& arreon, donee of the lot& 8he lot is located at *ta& lara, uhi on which the 8elecom -ffice was to be constructed& 8his inquir" of 0gnacio & rro"o was dismissed for lac% of merit on *eptember 1!, 1:7$& 0t appears that the basis for the complaint of =ructuoso rro"o from whom 0gnacio sought assistance was petitioner's e?clusion of certain names of newl" hired emplo"ees in egion who appeared related to certain ran%ing officials of the region, for the purpose of %eeping under wraps the appointment of said emplo"ees from 0gnacio rro"o who had previousl" complained of the alleged illegal termination of his niece .enita & .oceda& etitioner had to falsif" the list which she submitted in compliance with egional /irector orante's onfidential emorandum to the alleged pre#udice of .oceda and for the purpose of protecting her future interest in the sense that those e?cluded (who should have been included) were close relatives of ran%ing officials of the 8elecommunications -ffice of egion & 8elecom 0nvestigator =lorencio alapano, acting on the unverified complaint of =ructuoso rro"o, conducted an informal fact5finding inquir" and came out with a emorandum recommending that petitioner be sternl" warned that a repetition of a similar offense in the future would be dealt with more drasticall" and that the case should be considered closed& ased solel" on the aforesaid emorandum, the *ecretar" of the /epartment of 8ransportation and ommunications handed down a esolution on *eptember 36, 1:77 finding petitioner Aguilt" as chargedA and suspending her for one "ear and disqualif" her for promotion for a period of one "ear& etitioner moved for reconsideration of the resolution but the same was denied& *he thus appealed the resolution and order of denial of the motion for reconsideration to the ivil *ervice ommission for review, anchoring her appeal on lac% of due process in the proceedings& -n arch 2, 1:7: the ivil *ervice ommission, thru its erit *"stems oard, issued the -rder setting aside the resolution of the /epartment of 8ransportation and ommunications and remanding the case to the 8elecom -ffice of egion for further investigation to conform with the procedural requirements of due process& 0nstead of compl"ing with the above order, respondent hairman illalu of the issued the -rder of ul" , 1:7: setting the case for trial on ugust 3, 1:7:& -n ugust 2, 1:7:, petitioner filed a anifestation and otion informing respondent illalu that no formal charge had been instituted b" the 8elecommunications -ffice against her and respondents, therefore, had no #urisdiction over the case& espondents denied said manifestation and motion for lac% of merit in the -rder of ugust $, 1:7: and again set the case for hearing on ugust 23, 1:7:&
Bence, this petition& etitioner avers that respondent never acquired #urisdiction over dm& ase .o& 5634577 because of the absence of a formal charge against her and that the proceedings conducted b" egional 0nvestigator =lorencio alapano was a mere fact5finding inquir"& espondent hairman of the however, contends that the -rder of the erit *"stems oard of the ivil *ervice ommission was rendered without lawful authorit" since petitioner's appeal to said oard was filed when the assailed resolution had alread" become final and e?ecutor"; that the oard, not having acquired #urisdiction to entertain the appeal for having been filed be"ond the reglementar" period could not have legall" rendered its decision in the said administrative case& 9i%ewise, respondents claim that egional -ffice .o& could no longer ta%e cogniance of the case as per order of the erit *"stems oard for the reason that the decision had alread" become final and e?ecutor"& omplaints against emplo"ees, li%e petitioner herein, who belong to the ivil *ervice areer *"stem are still governed b" &/& .o& 76$& 8his mandate of &/& .o& 76$ has been recognied and implemented b" respondent dministrative ction oard when it declared in -ffice -rder .o& 775317 dated ul" 1, 1:77 that the oard shall observe the pertinent civil service rules and policies designed to e?pedite action on cases referred to it& (+mphasis supplied) 8he pertinent provisions of the aforecited ivil *ervice 9aw read as follows< *+80-. 3$& Disciplinary Jurisdiction& C (a) 8he ommission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinar" cases involving the imposition of a penalt" of suspension for more than thirt" da"s, or fine in an amount, e?ceeding thirt" da"s' salar", demotion in ran% or salar" or transfer, removal or dismissal from office& complaint ma" be filed directl" with the ommission b" a private citien against a government official or emplo"ee in which case it ma" hear an" department or agenc" or and decide the case or it ma" deputie official or group of officials to conduct the investigation& 8he results of the investigation shall be submitted to the ommission with recommendation as to the penalt" to be imposed or other action to be ta%en& (b) 8he heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities shall have #urisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinar" action against officers and emplo"ees under their #urisdiction& 8heir decisions shall be final in case the penalt" imposed is suspension for not more than thirt" da"s or fine in an amount not e?ceeding thirt" da"s' salar"& 0n case the decision rendered b" a bureau or office head is appealable to the ommission, the same ma" be initiall" appealed to the department and finall" to the ommission and pending appeal, the same shall be e?ecutor" e?cept when the penalt" is removal, in which case the same shall be e?ecutor" onl" after confirmation b" the department head& (c) n investigation ma" be entrusted to regional director or similar officials who shall ma%e the necessar" report and recommendation to the chief of bureau or office or department within the period specified in aragraph (d) of the following *ection& (d) n appeal shall not stop the decision from being e?ecutor", and in case the penalt" is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension during the pendenc" of the appeal in the event he wins an appeal&
*+& 37& rocedure in dministrative ases gainst .on5residential ppointees& C a) dministrative proceedings ma" be commenced against a subordinate officer or emplo"ee b" the head of department or office of equivalent ran%, or head of local government, or chiefs of agencies, or regional directors, or upon sworn, written complaint of an" other persons& (b) 0n the case of a complaint filed b" an" other persons, the complainant shall submit sworn statements covering his testimon" and those of his witnesses together with his documentar" evidence& 0f on the basis of such papers a prima facie case is found not to e?ist, the disciplining authorit" shall dismiss the case& 0f a prima facie case e?ist, he shall notif" the respondent in writing, of the charges against the latter, to which shall be attached copies of the complaint, sworn statements and other documents submitted, and the respondent shall be allowed not less than sevent"5two hours after receipt of the complaint to answer the charges in writing under oath, together with supporting sworn statements and documents, in which he shall indicate whether or not he elects a formal investigation if his answer is not considered satisfactor"& 0f the answer is found satisfactor", the disciplining authorit" shall dismiss the case& (c) lthough a respondent does not request a formal investigation, one shall nevertheless be conducted when from the allegations of the complaint and the answer of the respondent, including the supporting documents, the merits of the case cannot be decided #udiciousl" without conducting such an investigation& & & & etitioner's contentions appear meritorious& 0t should be noted that under *ection 3$ (b) as aforequoted, the decisions of heads of departments become final onl" in cases where the penalt" imposed is suspension for not more than thirt" (36) da"s or fine in an amount not e?ceeding thirt" (36) da"s' salar"& 0n the case, therefore, of petitioner who had been made to suffer the penalt" of suspension for one (1) "ear, such penalt" should not have been implemented without the appeal to the ivil *ervice ommission for proper review& .otabl", paragraph (a) of the above *ection e?plicitl" provides that the ommission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinar" cases involving the imposition of a penalt" of suspension for more than 36 da"s, or fine in an amount e?ceeding 36 da"s' salar"& learl", the enforcement of the penalt" imposed upon petitioner under the resolution of the *ecretar" of the /epartment of 8ransportation and ommunications was premature& =rom the ver" start, the basis upon which this case was investigated had been defective and irregular& =or, the letter5complaint of =ructuoso rro"o was not verified and "et, the same was haphaardl" made the basis of the informal inquir"& 0t should be stressed that par& (a) of *ec& 37 mandates that administrative proceedings ma" be commenced against an emplo"ee b" the head of the department or office of equivalent ran% or upon sworn written complaint of an" other person& 0t should also be noted that under paragraph (b) of said *ection, a respondent is given the option to elect a formal investigation of the charge against him if his answer is not found satisfactor"& 0n the case of petitioner, it appears that when her answer to the unverified complaint was found unsatisfactor", she was never given a chance to decide whether or not to submit herself to a formal investigation& 8he emorandum of 8elecom 0nvestigator alapano to the egional /irector is merel" recommendator" since it was onl" the outcome of a fact finding investigation based on the unverified complaint& .ote that the informal investigation was onl" an inquir" into the alleged dishonest acts of
petitioner in which case, the emorandum could not be made as the basis for an" final resolution of the case& 8he legal and proper procedure should have been for the egional /irector of egion , the alter ego of the department secretar" to initiate the formal complaint on the basis of the results of the inquir" of the 8elecom 0nvestigator& 0nstead of observing the mandator" rules on formal investigations as prescibed b" / .o& 76$, the /-8 *ecretar" cut corners and apparentl" railroaded this case b" rendering the assailed resolution& +ven the 8elecom 0nvestigator did not %now what he was doing& Be e?ceeded his authorit" b" imposing in the emorandum a penalt" in the form of a warning to petitioner& Bis #ob was limited to an inquir" into the facts and a determination on whether or not a prima facie case e?isted& Bis findings were merel" preparator" to the filing of the necessar" formal administrative case b" the egional /irector& 0t should be noted with alarm that the 8elecom /irector who was supposed to review the findings of the 8elecom 0nvestigator merel" affi?ed his approval within the emorandum (p& $ of emorandum), thus obviousl" indicating that he never reviewed the merits of the case& 0t appears highl" irregular that sst& *ecretar" *ibal of the /-8, in his letter dated ugust 2, 1:7: to hairman illalu of the dministrative ction oard, informed the latter that his -ffice did not file an" administrative complaint against petitioner nor had it filed a formal charge against her for whatever administrative offense& .ote that even with this letter, hairman illalu proceeded to order the hearing of this case& 8his is a clear indication that for lac% of coordination among the /-8 authorities and the egional -ffice, the mandator" requirements of due process to which petitioner was entitled were irreverentl" ignored& 8hus, in the case of Jose Rizal College v. National Laor Relations Commission (@&& .o& !472, /ecember 1, 1:7$) this ourt reiterated the Acardinal primar"A requirements of due process in administrative proceedings and these are< (1) the right to a hearing which includes, the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have something to support itself, (4) the evidence must be substantial, and substantial evidence means such evidence as a reasonable mind must accept as adequate to support a conclusion; () the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (!) the tribunal or bod" or an" of its #udges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controvers", and not simpl" accept the views of a subordinate; ($) the board or bod" should in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can %now the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered& (+mphasis supplied) +videntl", respondents denied petitioner her right to a formal and full5blown administrative proceedings which she never had& DB++=-+, the esolution dated *eptember 36, 1:77 of the *ecretar" of the /epartment of 8ransportation and ommunications and the proceedings before the dministrative ction oard are hereb" declared .E99 and -0/& 8he *ecretar" of the /-8 is hereb" directed to restore to petitioner's record of service the period which she served under suspension and to delete from her personnel file the period within which she was disqualified for promotion& *- -/++/& !elencio"#errera $C%airman and Regalado, JJ., concur. 'adilla, J., too( no part.
)armiento, J., is on leave.
