Ang Tibay vs CIR The National Labor Union (NLU) avers that Teodoro Toribio WN the motion for

e motion for new trial should be granted -- YES Cardinal rights:

is guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against 1. Right to a hearing
(27 February, 1940 | NLU and favoring National Worker’s BRotherhood (NWB). No substantial evidence indicates the exclusion of the 89 2. Tribunal must
Laurel) They allege that NWB of Ang Tibay (leather company owned laborers was due to their union affiliation or activity. consider evidence
and operated by Teodoro Toribio) is a company or employer presented
union dominated by Teodoro, which is illegal. The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose 3. Decision must be
functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation supported
They also allege that Teodoro’s claim of a shortage of (Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is more an administrative 4. Evidence supporting
leather soles in Ang Tibay makes it necessary to temporarily than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. decision must be
lay off the members of the NLU is entirely false and It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the substantial
unsupported by the records of the Bureau of Customs and Government. 5. Decision must be
the Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather. rendered on the
The CIR not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial evidence presented
NLU claims that the supposed lack of leather materials was functions in the determination of disputes between at the hearing, or at
a scheme adopted to systematically discharge all NLU employers and employees but its functions in the least contained in
members from work. They allege that Teodoro’s letter to the determination of disputes between employers and the record and
Philippine Army (re: supposed delay of leather soles from employees but its functions are far more comprehensive disclosed to the
US) was a scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of and expensive. It has jurisdiction to consider, investigate, parties affected
this bond despite the breach of his contract with the decide, and settle any question, matter controversy or 6. CIR must act on its
Philippine Army. dispute arising between, and/or affecting employers and own independent
employees or laborers, and regulate the relations between consideration
NLU claims that the provisions of the Civil Code cannot and them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of 7. Decision must be
should not be made applicable in interpreting and applying Commonwealth Act No. 103. rendered in such a
the salutary provisions of a modern labor legislation of manner that the
American origin where industrial peace has always been the When directed by the President of the Philippines, it shall parties can know the
rule. investigate and study all industries established in a various issues
designated locality, with a view to determining the involved, and the
NLU filed a motion for new trial based on these grounds, necessity and fairness of fixing and adopting for such reasons for the
which was in turn opposed by Ang Tibay. industry or locality a minimum wage or share of laborers decision rendered
or tenants, or a maximum "canon" or rental to be paid by
the "inquilinos" or tenants or less to landowners.

In fine, it may appeal to voluntary arbitration in the

settlement of industrial disputes; may employ mediation or
conciliation for that purpose, or recur to the more effective
system of official investigation and compulsory arbitration
in order to determine specific controversies between labor
and capital industry and in agriculture. There is in reality
here a mingling of executive and judicial functions,

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
1
 which is a departure from the rigid doctrine of the
separation of governmental powers.

The CIR is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of

procedure, and the Act requires it to "act according to
justice and equity and substantial merits of the case,
without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not
be bound by any technicalities or legal forms and shall not
be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may
inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and
equitable." But, this does not mean that it can entirely
ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential
requirements of due process in trials and investigations of
an administrative character. There are (cardinal) primary
rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this
character:

1. Right to a hearing, which includes the right of the

party interested/affected to present his own case
and submit evidence in support thereof
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented
3. “While the duty to deliberate does not impose the
obligation to decide right, it does imply a
necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely,
that of having something to support it is a nullity,
a place when directly attached.”
4. Not only must there be some evidence to support
a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be
“substantial” (such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind accept as adequate to support
a conclusion)
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in
the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the
purpose of investigating and determining the
facts in any given case, but their report and
decision are only advisory. The CIR may refer
any matter under its consideration to a local
board of inquiry or any public official for
investigation, and may delegate to such board or

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
2

Bachrach Motor vs Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. was in the transportation business
CIR and operated the "Rural Transit".
(J. Munoz-Palma | Rural Transit Employees Association went on strike. The
October 30, 1978) dispute between the management and the union reached
the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for compulsory
arbitration. The CIR issued an Order by which the strikers
were ordered to return to work and the management to take
them back under the terms and conditions existing before
the dispute arose.
While this labor dispute was pending with the CIR Bachrach
filed a "Petition for Authority to discharge driver Maximo
Jacob from the service", allegedly because of violations of
the Motor Vehicle Law by Maximo Jacob resulting in
damage to property and injuries to third parties, the latest of
which resulted in the "total destruction of bus 170" of the
company.
An "Answer and Counter-Petition" was filed in behalf of
Maximo Jacob by the Rural Transit Employees Association
whereby it denied the charges and alleged that the accident
was due to a mechanical defect of the bus which was
beyond the control of the driver Jacob, hence, the latter's
suspension from the service was not justified.
During trial, Bachrach presented its one and only witness,
Mr. Joseph Kaplin, general manager of Rural Transit, and
AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
official such powers and functions as the CIR
may deem necessary, but such delegation shall
not affect the exercise of the Court itself of any
powers.
6. The CIR must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy, and not simply accept views of its
subordinate.
7. The CIR should render its decision in such a
manner that the parties can know the various
issues involved, and the reasons for the decision
rendered.
WON THE CIR ERRED IN DISMISSING BACHRACH’S
PETITION
NO. Bachrach presented only one witness, Joseph Kaplin
to prove its case against driver Jacob. The witness failed
however to appear at the scheduled hearings for his cross-
examination for the simple reason that he left for abroad.
Having been deprived, without fault on its part, of its right
to cross-examine Kaplin, the union was entitled to have
the direct testimony of the witness stricken off the record.
The right of a party to confront and cross-examine
opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it
criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before
administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is
fundamental right which is part of due process.
(Ortigas Jr. v. Luftansa German Airlines) Defendant's
witness failed to appear at the continuation of hearing
during which the witness was to be cross-examined by
plaintiff's counsel. The trial court denied defendant's
motion for postponement and ordered the unfinished
testimony of the witness Lazzari stricken off the record.
Oral testimony may be taken into account only when it is
complete, that is, if the witness has been wholly cross-
examined by the adverse party or the right to cross-
examine is lost wholly or in part thru the fault of such
3
 various documents. After Kaplin’s direct testimony, the adverse party. But when cross-examination is not and
parties agreed to reschedule the cross-examination of the cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to
witness. The case was reset on various dates but Mr. Kaplin the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony
failed to appear because he had left for abroad. is thereby rendered incompetent.

The union filed a motion praying that: The right of a party to cross-examine the witness of his
adversary is invaluable as it is inviolable in civil cases, no
1. The testimony of Mr. Kaplin be stricken from the less than the right of the accused in criminal cases. The
records express recognition of such right of the accused in the
2. The petition of Bachrach for authority to dismiss Constitution does not render the right thereto of parties in
Jacob be denied civil cases less constitutionally based, for it is an
3. Bachrach be ordered to reinstate Jacob indispensable part of the due process guaranteed by the
immediately with backwages from the date of fundamental law. ... Until such cross-examination has
suspension up to his actual reinstatement been finished, the testimony of the witness cannot be
considered as complete and may not, therefore, be
The CIR through Presiding Judge Arsenio I. Martinez allowed to form part of the evidence to be considered
dismissed Bachrach's petition, lifted the suspension of driver by the court in deciding the case.
Jacob, and ordered his reinstatement with backwages from
the date of his suspension up to his actual reinstatement. (Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang
Bachrach’s MR was denied. Pilipino) There, the witness, Atty. Morabe, had finished his
direct testimony and he was ready and available for cross-
It filed a petition for certiorari before the SC. examination. Motions for postponement of the cross-
examination were made however by the adverse counsel
from time to time until one day Atty. Morabe succumbed to
a fatal heart attack without the cross-examination having
been accomplished. On motion of the respondents the CIR
ordered the testimony of Atty. Morabe deleted from the
record. On a petition for certiorari by Savory Luncheonette,
this Court set aside the order and held that by their own
actuations, respondents were considered to have
impliedly waived and thereupon lost their right to cross-
examine the witness, for such a right may be forfeited by
a party litigant through his own conduct.

Bachrach contends however that it was ready to present

another witness, Mrs. Ursula Silva, to identify the
documents, but it did not proceed to call the witness for
the reason that during the hearing of, respondent's
counsel, Atty. Santiago, manifested that he was admitting
the signatures of Joseph Kaplin on the aforesaid
documents. However true that may be, what Atty.
Santiago admitted merely was the signature of Mr. Kaplin

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
4
 and not the truth of the contents of the documents. The
opposing party was still entitled to cross-examine the
witness on the matters written on the exhibits especially if
they adversely affected the substantial rights of the party
against whom they were being presented, namely, driver
Maximo Jacob.

When Atty. Santiago admitted that the signature

appearing in the exhibits was that of Kaplin, the counsel of
petitioner then, Atty. Joven Enrile, should have inquired if
the party was admitting likewise the veracity of the
contents of the documents; not having done so, petitioner
must now suffer the consequences. The Exhibits were
admitted by the CIR for "whatever they may be worth."
Evaluating them, however, it did not consider said
documents, and rightly so, as competent proof of the
truthfulness of their contents without the supporting
testimony of witness Kaplin.

DID THE CIR ERR IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE

UNION EVEN WITHOUT RECEIVING EVIDENCE

NO. The relief could be granted without need of evidence.

The onus probandi was on Bachrach justify the
suspension of Jacob and his eventual separation from the
service. Having failed to discharge that burden, there were
no valid grounds for it to keep its employee away from his
work.

---ON BACKWAGES---

To avoid protracted delay in post-judgment hearings to

prove or disprove earnings of the worker elsewhere during
the period he had not been reinstated to his employment,
the reasonable period for the payment of backwages is to
be fixed.

The SC held that the payment of backwages for 3 years is

fair and reasonable under the circumstances of the case.

Montemayor vs Montemayor was the OIC-Regional Director of DPWH Whether he was denied due process in the There is a need to lay down
Budalian Region 3. He was investigated for graft and corruption investigation before the PCAGC: NO the basic principles in

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
5
 based on an unverified complaint filed by Bundalian with the The essence of due process in administrative proceedings administrative investigations.
Puno, J. | 2003 Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco, California. is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a First, the burden is on the
The complaint asserted that Montemayor and his wife reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As complainant to prove by
bought a house and lot in Burbank, Los Angeles, California long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard substantial evidence the
and made a US$100,000 downpayment for it. Bundalian before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process allegations in his complaint.
further alleged that petitioner’s in-laws who were living in are sufficiently met. In the case at bar, the PCAGC exerted Substantial evidence is more
California had a poor credit standing due to a number of efforts to notify the complainant of the proceedings but his than a mere scintilla of
debts and they could not have purchased such an Philippine residence could not be located. evidence. It means such
expensive property for petitioner and his wife. Private relevant evidence as a
respondent accused petitioner of amassing wealth from Be that as it may, petitioner cannot argue that he was reasonable mind might
lahar funds and other public works projects. deprived of due process because he failed to confront and accept as adequate to
cross-examine the complainant. Petitioner voluntarily support a conclusion, even if
Montemayor appointed his sister-in-law, Estela Fajardo, as submitted to the jurisdiction of the PCAGC by participating other minds equally
his attorney-in-fact to complete the transaction. The in the proceedings before it. He was duly represented by reasonable might conceivably
complaint was indorsed to the Philippine Commission counsel. He filed his counter-affidavit, submitted opine otherwise.
Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) for investigation. documentary evidence, attended the hearings, moved for
Petitioner, represented by counsel, submitted his counter- a reconsideration of Administrative Order No. 12 issued by Second, in reviewing
affidavit before the PCAGC alleging that the real owner of the President and eventually filed his appeal before the administrative decisions of
the subject property was his sister-in-law. Court of Appeals. His active participation in every step of the executive branch of the
the investigation effectively removed any badge of government, the findings of
Montemayor explained that in view of the unstable condition procedural deficiency, if there was any, and satisfied the facts made therein are to be
of government service in 1991, his wife inquired from her due process requirement. He cannot now be allowed to respected so long as they are
family in the U.S. about their possible emigration to the challenge the procedure adopted by the PCAGC in the supported by substantial
States. They were advised by an immigration lawyer that it investigation. evidence. Hence, it is not for
would be an advantage if they had real property in the U.S. the reviewing court to weigh
Fajardo intimated to them that she was interested in buying Effect of unverified complaint: The lack of verification of the conflicting evidence,
a house and lot in Burbank, California, but could not do so the administrative complaint and the non-appearance of determine the credibility of
at that time as there was a provision in her mortgage the complainant at the investigation did not divest the witnesses, or otherwise
contract prohibiting her to purchase another property PCAGC of its authority to investigate the charge of substitute its judgment for
pending full payment of a real estate she earlier acquired in unexplained wealth. Under Section 3 of Executive Order that of the administrative
Palmdale, Los Angeles. Fajardo offered to buy the Burbank No. 151 creating the PCAGC, complaints involving graft agency with respect to the
property and put the title in the names of petitioner and his and corruption may be filed before it in any form or manner sufficiency of evidence. Third,
wife to support their emigration plans and to enable her at against presidential appointees in the executive administrative decisions in
the same time to circumvent the prohibition in her mortgage department. Indeed, it is not totally uncommon that a matters within the executive
contract. government agency is given a wide latitude in the scope jurisdiction can only be set
and exercise of its investigative powers. The Ombudsman, aside on proof of gross abuse
Montemayor likewise pointed out that the charge against under the Constitution, is directed to act on any complaint of discretion, fraud, or error of
him was the subject of similar cases filed before the likewise filed in any form and manner concerning official law. These principles negate
Ombudsman.2 He attached to his counter-affidavit the acts or omissions. The Court Administrator of this Court the power of the reviewing
Consolidated Investigation Report3 of the Ombudsman investigates and takes cognizance of, not only unverified, court to re-examine the
dismissing similar charges for insufficiency of evidence. but even anonymous complaints filed against court sufficiency of the evidence in
employees or officials for violation of the Code of Ethical an administrative case as if

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
6
 From May 29, 1996 until March 13, 1997, the PCAGC
conducted its own investigation. Montemayot participated in
the proceedings and submitted various pleadings and
documents through his counsel. However, Bundalian could
not be located as his Philippine address could not be
ascertained. In the course of the investigation, the PCAGC
repeatedly required petitioner to submit his Statement of
Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), Income Tax
Returns (ITRs) and Personal Data Sheet.
Petitioner ignored these directives and submitted only his
Service Record. He likewise adduced in evidence the
checks allegedly issued by his sister-in-law to pay for the
house and lot in Burbank, California. When the PCAGC
requested the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon to furnish it
with copies of petitioner’s SALN from 1992-1994, it was
informed that petitioner failed to file his SALN for those
years.
After the investigation, the PCAGC, in its Report to the
Office of the President, made the following findings:
Petitioner purchased a house and lot in Burbank, California,
for US$195,000.00 (or P3.9M at the exchange rate
prevailing in 1993). The sale was evidenced by a Grant
Deed. The PCAGC concluded that the petitioner could not
have been able to afford to buy the property on his annual
income of P168,648.00 in 1993 as appearing on his Service
Record.
It likewise found petitioner’s explanation as unusual, largely
unsubstantiated, unbelievable and self-serving. The
PCAGC noted that instead of adducing evidence,
petitioner’s counsel exerted more effort in filing pleadings
and motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping. It
also took against petitioner his refusal to submit his SALN
and ITR despite the undertaking made by his counsel which
raised the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed
would be adverse if produced.
The PCAGC concluded that as petitioner’s acquisition of the
subject property was manifestly out of proportion to his
salary, it has been unlawfully acquired. Thus, it
AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
Conduct. This policy has been adopted in line with the originally instituted therein,
serious effort of the government to minimize, if not and do not authorize the court
eradicate, graft and corruption in the service. to receive additional evidence
that was not submitted to the
Whether his guilt was proved by substantial evidence: administrative agency
YES--see doctrine concerned.
Petitioner admitted that the subject property was in his
name. However, he insisted that it was his sister-in-law
Estela Fajardo who paid for the property in installments.
He submitted as proof thereof the checks issued by
Fajardo as payment for the amortizations of the property.
His evidence, however, likewise fail to convince us.
● First, the record is bereft of evidence to prove the
alleged internal arrangement. He did not submit
her affidavit to the investigating body nor did she
testify before it regarding her ownership of the
Burbank property.
● Second, the checks allegedly issued by Fajardo
to pay for the monthly amortizations on the
property have no evidentiary weight as Fajardo’s
mere issuance thereof cannot prove petitioner’s
non-ownership of the property. Fajardo would
naturally issue the checks as she was appointed
by petitioner as attorney-in-fact and the latter
would naturally course through her the payments
for the Burbank property.
● Third, petitioner’s own evidence contradict his
position. We cannot reconcile petitioner’s denial
of ownership of the property with the loan
statement he adduced showing that he obtained
a loan from the World Savings and Loan
Association for $195,000.00 on June 23, 1993 to
finance the acquisition of the property.
● Then, three (3) years later, on May 30, 1996,
petitioner and his wife executed a Quitclaim Deed
donating the Burbank property to his sisters-in-
law Estela and Rose Fajardo allegedly to prove
his non-ownership of the property. It is obvious
that the Quitclaim Deed is a mere afterthought,
having been executed only after a complaint for
unexplained wealth was lodged against
7
 recommended petitioner’s dismissal from service pursuant
to Section 8 of R.A. No. 3019. The OP concurred with the
report, and Montemayor was dismissed from service. His
MR was dismissed, as well as his appeal to the CA.
Petitioner submits that the PCAGC committed infractions of
the cardinal rules of administrative due process when it
relied on Bundalian’s unverified letter-complaint. He gripes
that his counter-affidavit should have been given more
weight as the unverified complaint constitutes hearsay
evidence. Moreover, petitioner insists that in ruling against
him, the PCAGC failed to respect his right to confront and
cross-examine the complainant as the latter never appeared
in any of the hearings before the PCAGC nor did he send a
representative therein.
Autencio vs Manara City Administrator, Manara lodged a complaint against
(January 19, 2005 | Autencio with the Office of the City mayor for dishonesty and
Panganiban, J.) misconduct in the office.
AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
petitioner. Why the Quitclaim Deed included
Rose Fajardo when it was only Estela Fajardo
who allegedly owned the property was not
explained on the record. Petitioner’s evidence
failed to clarify the issue as it produced, rather
than settled, more questions.
Petitioner admitted that the Grant Deed over the property
was in his name. He never denied the existence and due
execution of the Grant Deed and the Special Power of
Attorney he conferred to Estela Fajardo with respect to the
acquisition of the Burbank property. With these
admissions, the burden of proof was shifted to
petitioner to prove non-ownership of the property. He
cannot now ask this Court to remand the case to the
PCAGC for reception of additional evidence as, in the
absence of any errors of law, it is not within the
Court’s power to do so. He had every opportunity to
adduce his evidence before the PCAGC.
Whether the earlier dismissal of similar cases before
the Ombudsman rendered the administrative case
before the PCAGC moot and academic: NO
The decision of the Ombudsman does not operate as res
judicata in the PCAGC case subject of this review. The
doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings, not to the exercise of administrative
powers. Petitioner was investigated by the Ombudsman
for his possible criminal liability for the acquisition of the
Burbank property in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code. For the same
alleged misconduct, petitioner, as a presidential
appointee, was investigated by the PCAGC by virtue of the
administrative power and control of the President over
him. As the PCAGC’s investigation of petitioner was
administrative in nature, the doctrine of res judicata finds
no application in the case at bar.
Was the petitioner denied due process? – NO The essence of due process
Petitioner: waived her right to a formal hearing, only in administrative proceedings
because she was led to believe that she would be liable is simply the opportunity to
8
 · What was the complaint about? – Riza Bravo, an
employee of the City Assessors Office, changed the
Sept 1996 payroll prepared by her upon the order of the
petitioner. The 1st prepared payroll reflected 5 days
attendance of 7 casual employees. In the 2nd payroll the
7 casual employees worked for the whole month of
September.
· Despite the fact that the 7 casual employees
rendered services only for 5 days and 2 weeks for the
month of October, the petitioner directed them to
prepare and reflect in their respective daily time records
full attendance for the months in question.
· The petitioner told them that ½ of their salaries
for the month of Sept 1996 will be deducted as their
contributions for the Christmas party of their office and
that this matter will be a surprise for the regular
employees ad mist be kept a secret among themselves.
· Bravo collected the salaries of the 7 casual
employees from the City Treasury Office upon
instruction of the petitioner and distributed to them only
½ of their salary and gave the remainder to the
petitioner.
Pending investigation of the administrative complaint,
petitioner was preventively suspended for 90 days.
Office for Legal Services issued a resolution which was
approved by the City Mayor Badoy, declaring the petitioner
guilty of misconduct in office for allowing irregularities to
happen which led to illegal payment of salaries to casuals.
However, as regards to the charge of dishonestly, there was
insufficiency of evidence.
A penalty of forced resignation with forfeiture of retirement
benefits except for earned leave was imposed.
Petitioner appealed to CSC who modified the decision to
grave misconduct and imposed on her the penalty of
dismissal for cause with all its accessories. MR was also
denied
· It is to be noted that in her MR petitioner alleged
that she had waived her right to present evidence at a
formal hearing and agreed to submit the case for
resolution because she could only be held liable for the
lesser offense of simple negligence.
AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
for the lesser offense of simple negligence. She relied on explain ones side or to seek a
the Manifestation of the Mayor of Cotatabato stating that reconsideration of the action
an injustice was committed against her because she had or ruling complained of.
been deceived to the point that she waived her right to Furthermore, the counsels
present evidence. actions and mistakes on
The Manifestation constituted judicial admission that the procedural matters bind the
present counsel of the city counsel did not object to, and client. On the other hand, the
that the appellate court should have taken into complainants manifestations
consideration. or representations on
questions of law do not bind
SC: The legal presumption is that official duty has been the decision makers or the
duly performed. Government officials are presumed to courts.
have regularly performed their functions, and strong
evidence is necessary to rebut this presumption, The
Manifestation is insufficient to overturn this presumption. It
contains mere conclusions and not statements of fact.
Fraud is never presumed, it must be established by clear
and convincing evidence. In this case, there is no clear
evidence of fraud. While respondents did not object to the
admission of the Manifestation, the leeway to consider and
assess its probative value nonetheless lay in the appellate
court.
In her original complaint, petitioner did not raise the issue
of respondents alleged misrepresentation. Instead she
merely questioned the harshness of penalty imposed by
the city government. Failure to invoke a defense within the
prescribed period constituted a waiver. Defenses cannot
be raised on appeal.
We agree with the CA that petitioner was afforded due
process. On the formal charge against her, she had
received sufficient information which, in fact, enabled her
to prepare her defense. She filed her Answer controverting
the charges against her and submitted Affidavits of
personnel in the Assessors Office to support her claim of
innocence. A pre-hearing conference was conducted by
the legal officer, during which she -- assisted by her
counsel -- had participated.
Finally, she was able to appeal the ruling of City Mayor
Badoy to the CSC, and then to the CA. In administrative
9
 She raised the issue of whether she was denied due
process and whether the penalty that the CSC imposed was
harsh in the CA.
CA affirmed the CSC resolutions. MR was denied.
cases, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain ones
side suffices to meet the requirements of due process. A
formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary. For
the purpose of ascertaining the truth, an investigation will
be conducted, during which technical rules applicable to
judicial proceedings need not always be adhered to. And
where the party has the opportunity to appeal or seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of,
defects in procedural due process may be cured.
Finally, settled is the rule in our jurisdiction that the findings
of fact of an administrative agency must be respected, so
long as they are supported by substantial evidence. It is
not the task of this Court to weigh once more the evidence
submitted before the administrative body and to substitute
its own judgment for that of the latter in respect of the
sufficiency of evidence. In any event, the Decisions of the
CSC and the Court of Appeals finding petitioner guilty of
the administrative charge prepared against her are
supported by substantial evidence

Medina vs COA The Commision on Audit audited the cash and accounts I. Whether or not Medina was deprived of her right to There is no basis in law for
(Feb 4, 2008; J.Tinga) handled by Lorna Medina as Municipal of General Mariano due process when her request for a formal the proposition that the
Alvarez, Cavite and the Audit team, headed by Eufrocina investigation was denied. provisions of the
Mawak, discovered a total cash shortage of P4,080,631.36. Administrative Code of 1987
Defenses of Medina: Medina was ordered to restitute the shortage but she failed Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by ... should be applied
to comply. COA filed an administrative case with the Deputy Administrative Order No. 17, particularly governs the suppletorily to the provisions
(1) the audit team was Ombudsman charging Medina with grave misconduct and procedure in administrative proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman Act as
not independent and dishonesty. of the Ombudsman. there is nothing in the
competent; Ombudsman Act which
(2) the computation of Medina filed a Counter-Affidavit and Position Paper • Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by provides for such suppletory
her accountabilities raising affirmative defenses. Deputy Ombudsman Victor C. Administrative Order No. 17, Rule III, Section 5 specifically application. xxx xxx xxx
was overstated and Fernandez (Fernandez) approved the recommendation of provides that the conduct of a formal investigation is
erroneous; the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer to dismiss discretionary upon the hearing officer. And while in one respect, the
(3) the audit team petitioner from service; the decision noted Medina's Ombudsman Law, the
failed to verify supposed failure to file a counter-affidavit and position paper • It further provides that, if the hearing officer sees no Administrative Code of 1987
documents such as despite due notice. Later, Medina filed an urgent motion need to conduct a formal investigation, he may deem the and the Local Government
bank reconciliation stating that she complied with the directive to file a counter- case submitted for resolution on the basis of the position Code are in pari materia
statements, general affidavit and position paper and prayed that the decision be papers, affidavits, and other pleadings filed. insofar as the three laws
ledgers and cashbooks reversed based on her defenses. relate or deal with public
presented during the On the other hand, Sec. 48(2) and Sec. 48(3) of the officers, the similarity ends
cash count; (4) the Fernandez denied the motion; he acknowledged he made Administrative Code cited by Medina in support of her there. It is a principle in
documents in support a mistake in saying that Medina failed to file a counter- theory that she is entitled to a formal investigation apply statutory construction that

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
10
 of the audit report were affidavit and position paper but still affirmed the previous only to administrative cases filed before the Civil Service where there are two statutes
not signed, hence, order because none of the defenses exculpate Medina from Commission. that apply to a particular case,
were self-serving; the cash shortages; furthermore, Medina’s failure to that which was specially
(5) the cash shortage produce the cash shortage created the presumption that she As this is an administrative complaint filed before the designed for the said case
in the amount of appropriated the funds for personal use. Medina sought Office of the Ombudsman, it is the Rules of Procedure of must prevail over the other.
P379,646.51 under the reconsideration on the grounds of newly discovered the Office of the Ombudsman which shall govern; thus, in
SEF and Trust Fund as evidence consisting of her petition for reconsideration of the ruling that the prerogative to elect a formal investigation
well as the disallowed audit report which petition was still pending with the audit pertains to the hearing officer and not to petitioner,
amount of team and letters to the provincial auditor of Cavite Fernandez was only applying such procedure. The Court
P585,803.37 had no questioning the audit. has ruled on the primacy of special laws and of their
basis as the same implementing regulations over the Administrative Code of
pertained to a previous Fernandez denied the motion for reconsideration because 1987 in settling controversies specifically subject of these
audit and, thus, should the request for re-audit is not newly discovered evidence special laws.
have been excluded and he denied the request for a formal investigation on the
from the computation ground that petitioner was afforded due process when she • The aforesaid ruling is based on the principle of
of the total shortage; filed her counter-affidavit and position paper. statutory construction that where there are two statutes
(6) the cash items applicable to a particular case, that which is specially
amounting to On appeal, the CA held that Medina was not entitled to a intended for the said case must prevail.
P883,952.91 in the formal investigation and it affirmed the Fernandez's factual
form of reimbursement finding that she was guilty of grave misconduct and Even assuming the Administrative Code is applicable, still
expense receipts dishonesty. the records show that Medina sought a reinvestigation
should not have been only as an afterthought; the reinvestigation should have
disallowed because been requested at the first opportunity and definitely
they were actually before the rendition of a decision.
received by individual
payees; II.Whether or not the finding that Medina was guilty for
(7) petitioner's cash on grave misconduct and dishonesty supported by
hand accountability substantial evidence.
was overstated
because a collection Suffice it to say these are factual issues calling for a review
was not immediately of the records of the case. Clear and unmistakable is the
recorded; and (8) the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Just as
audit team erroneously well entrenched is the doctrine that pure issues of fact may
credited petitioner's not be the proper subject of appeal by certiorari under Rule
accounts to another 45 of the Revised Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is
cashier. generally confined to questions of law. Only questions of
law, not questions of fact, may be raised before the
Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45. This
Court cannot be tasked to go over the proofs presented by
the petitioners in the lower courts and analyze, assess and
weigh them to ascertain if the court a quo and the
appellate court were correct in their appreciation of the

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
11
 evidence

III.Whether or not the penalty of dismissal proper.

PETITIONER: Penalty is too harsh. That it is her first
offense >-mitigating circumstance

Jurisprudence is replete with cases declaring that a grave

offense cannot be mitigated by the fact that the accused is
a first time offender or by the length of service of the
accused. In Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, the Court
held as follows:

The gravity of the offense committed is also the reason

why we cannot consider the "first offense" circumstance
invoked by respondent. In several cases, we imposed the
heavier penalty of dismissal or a fine of more than
P20,000.00, considering the gravity of the offense
committed, even if the offense charged was respondent's
first offense. Thus, in the present case, even though the
offense respondent was found guilty of was her first
offense, the gravity thereof outweighs the fact that it was
her first offense.

Also, in Concerned Employees v. Nuestro, a court

employee charged with and found guilty of dishonesty for
falsification was meted the penalty of dismissal
notwithstanding the length of her service in view of the
gravity of the offense charged.

To end, it must be stressed that dishonesty and grave

misconduct have always been and should remain
anathema in the civil service. They inevitably reflect on the
fitness of a civil servant to continue in office. When an
officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not
the punishment of such officer or employee but the
improvement of the public service and the preservation of
the public's faith and confidence in the government.

Gannapao vs CSC

National NDC (operates under the name “Philippine National Lines”) WON the petitioners were not given the opportunity to be Proceedings before the
Development is engaged in the shipping business and is the owner of heard/ denied of due process - YES Collector of Customs insofar

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
12
 Company v. Collector steamship "S.S. Doña Nati" whose local agent in Manila is as the determination of any
(October 31, 1963 | A. V. Rocha. Petitioner Rocha was not given an opportunity to prove act or irregularity that may
Bautista Angelo, J.) that the TV set complained of is not a cargo that needs to involve a violation of any
On August 4, 1960, the Collector of Customs sent a notice be manifested as required by Sec. 2521 of the TCC. customs law or regulation is
to C.F. Sharp & Company as alleged operator of the vessel concerned, or of any act
informing it that said vessel was apprehended and found to Under said section, in order that an imported article or arising under the Tariff and
have committed a violation of the customs laws and merchandise may be considered a cargo that should be Customs Code, are not
regulations in that it carried an unmanifested cargo manifested it is first necessary that it be so established for judicial in character, but
consisting of one RCA Victor TV set 21" in violation of the reason that there are other effects that a vessel may merely administrative,
Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code (which was carry that are excluded from the requirement of the law, where the rules of procedure
being carried away by Dr. Basilio de Leon official doctor of among which are the personal effects of the members of are generally disregarded,
the ship). C.F. Sharp & Company was given 48 hours to the crew. but even in the
show cause why no administrative fine should be imposed administrative proceedings
upon. The fact that the TV set in question was claimed by the due process should be
customs authorities not to be within the exception does not observed because that is a
C.F. Sharp & Company, not being the agent or operator of automatically make the vessel liable. It is still necessary right enshrined in our
the vessel, referred the notice to A. V. Rocha, the agent and that the vessel, its owner or operator, be given a Constitution.
operator. chance to show otherwise. Not only was he denied this
chance, but respondent collector immediately imposed
On August 8, 1960, A.V. Rocha answered the notice stating upon the vessel the huge fine of P5,000.00.
that the TV set was not a cargo of the vessel and, therefore,
was not required by law to be manifested. Rocha stated
further that if the explanation is not sufficient, it requests -------------------------------------
that this case be set for investigation and hearing in order to 1. No issue on jurisdiction because the contention
enable the vessel to be informed of the evidence against it here is WON the Collector acted properly in
to sustain the charge and to present evidence in its defense. imposing said fine without first giving the operator
an opportunity to be heard. In accordance
Collector of Customs replied, stating that the TV set was a withRule 67, ROC.
cargo on board and that he does not find AV Rocha’s 2. WON premature because of non-exhaustion of
explanation satisfactory enough to exempt the vessel from remedies. Probably correct but here due process
liability. The collector imposed a fine of P5,000.00 l and was utterly denied.
ordered payment within 48 hours; threatening that he will
deny clearance to said vessel and will issue a warrant of
seizure and detention against it if the fine is not paid.

Thus, NDC and A. V. Rocha filed the instant special civil

action of certiorari with preliminary injunction before the CFI
Manila. CFI granted ex parte.

Respondent’s defenses:
(1) CFI has no jurisdiction to act on matters arising
from violations of the Customs Law, but the Court

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
13
 of Tax Appeals;
(2) assuming it has, petitioners have not exhausted
all available administrative remedies, ( appeal to
the Commissioner of Customs);
(3) the reqts of administrative due process have
already been complied with in that the written
notice given by respondent to Rocha clearly
specified the nature of the violation and that the
defense set up by Rocha constitute merely a legal
issue not requiring further investigation; and
(4) the investigation conducted by the customs
authorities showed that the TV set in question was
unloaded by the ship's doctor w/o going thru the
custom house and was not declared.

CFI then set aside Collector’s ruling for being unjust and
arbitrary because the party affected has not been accorded
the investigation it requested. The Collector appealed.

Equitable Bank v. Private respondent Sadac was appointed, effective 01 Its prematurity notwithstanding, the instant petition for It would virtually be foolhardy
NLRC August 1981, Vice-President for the Legal Department of certiorari was given due course in order not to unduly to so challenge the NLRC as
petitioner bank by its then President. On 08 December delay the final disposition of the case considering that the having committed grave
June 13, 1997 | VITUG, 1981, private respondent was also designated as the banks issues involved have heretofore been ventilated practically abuse of discretion in coming
J. General Counsel. to the limit by the parties. up with its findings. Just to the
contrary, NLRC appears to
On 26 June 1989, nine lawyers of the banks Legal The NLRC, in the instant case, based its finding that there have been rather exhaustive
Department, who were all under private respondent, existed an employer-employee relationship between in its examination of this
addressed a letter-petition to the Chairman of the Board of petitioner bank and private respondent on these factual particular question (existence
Directors, accusing private respondent of abusive conduct, settings or absence of an employer-
inefficiency, mismanagement, ineffectiveness and - Appointment as VP, legal department with a employee relationship
indecisiveness. monthly salary of P8,000.00, monthly allowance between the parties).
of P4,500.00, and the usual two months Substantial evidence, which
On 10 August 1989 Board Chairman Morales issued a Christmas bonus based on basic salary likewise is the quantum of evidence
memorandum to private respondent which stated that the enjoyed by the other officers of the bank. required to establish a fact in
Bank “has chosen the more compassionate option of waiting - the position of General Counsel of the bank was cases before administrative
for your voluntary resignation” and that it “elected to exercise created and extended to the complainant. and quasi-judicial bodies,
its prerogative as your client, under the rules of client and - the complainant was given the usual payslips connotes merely that amount
lawyer relationship to direct Atty. William R. Veto, Legal - the attorney's fees, documentary and notarial of relevant evidence which a
Counsel of the Bank these many years to appear in fees earned in the exercise of their profession as reasonable mind might
substitution of you.” in-house lawyers were not given to or even accept to be adequate in
shared with them, instead all were credited to the justifying a conclusion.
Sadac persisted in his request for a formal investigation but income of the bank.

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
14
 when this went unheeded, private respondent filed with the
Manila arbitration branch of the NLRC, a complaint against
herein petitioners for illegal dismissal and damages.
After learning of the filing of the complaint, the Board of
Directors, on 21 November 1989, adopted Resolution No.
5803 terminating the services of private respondent in view
of his belligerence" and the Board's "honest belief that the
relationship" between private respondent and petitioner
bank was one of "client and lawyer."
LA dismissed the complaint but the NLRC reversed, ruling
that there was an employer-employee relationship between
the parties and granting Sadac reinstatement, backwages
and damages.
Petitioners filed an MR. While this was pending, petitioners
filed the instant petition for certiorari.
- Complainant's monthly attendance, like those of
other bank officers, was recorded by the Chief
Security Officer and reported to the Office of the
President
- Complainant was authorized by the President to
sign for and in behalf of the bank contracts
covering legal services of lawyers to be retained
- Complainant participated as part of management
in annual Management Planning Conferences
- Respondent bank extended to complainant the
benefit (of) a car plan like any other qualified
senior officer of the bank.
- Respondent bank since 1982 continuously
reported and included the complainant as one of
its senior officers in its statements of financial
condition as VP
- Complainant, like other bank officers, prepared
his biographical data for submission to the
Central Bank

A lawyer, like any other professional, may very well be an

employee of a private corporation or even of the
government. It is not unusual for a big corporation to hire
a staff of lawyers as its in-house counsel, pay them regular
salaries, rank them in its table of organization, and
otherwise treat them like its other officers and employees.
At the same time, it may also contract with a law firm to act
as outside counsel on a retainer basis. The two classes of
lawyers often work closely together but one group is made
up of employees while the other is not. A similar
arrangement may exist as to doctors, nurses, dentists,
public relations practitioners, and other professionals.

The existence of an employer-employee relationship,

between the bank and private respondent brings the case
within the coverage of the Labor Code. Under the Code,
an employee may be validly dismissed if these requisites
are attendant: (1) the dismissal is grounded on any of the
causes stated in Article 282 of the Labor Code, and (2) the
employee has been notified in writing and given the
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself as so
required by Section 2 and Section 5, Rule XIV, Book V, of

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
15
 the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code.

Petitioners' stated loss of trust and confidence on private

respondent was spawned by the complaints leveled
against him by the lawyers in his department.

Concededly, a wide latitude of discretion is given an

employer in terminating the employment of managerial
employees on the ground of breach of trust and
confidence. In order to constitute a just cause for
dismissal, however, the act complained of must be related
to the performance of the duties of the employee such as
would show him to be thereby unfit to continue working for
the employer. Here, the grievances of the lawyers, in main,
refer to what are perceived to be certain objectionable
character traits of private respondent.

Confident that no employer-employee existed between the

bank and private respondent, petitioners have put aside
the procedural requirements for terminating ones
employment, i.e., (a) a notice apprising the employee of
the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is
sought, and (b) another notice informing the employee of
the employer's decision to dismiss him. Failure to comply
with these requirements taints the dismissal with illegality.
This procedure is mandatory, any judgment reached by
management without that compliance can be considered
void and inexistent. While it is true that the essence of due
process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied
in administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain
one's side, meetings in the nature of consultation and
conferences such as the case here, however, may not be
valid substitutes for the proper observance of notice and
hearing.

WHEREFORE, the herein questioned Resolution of the

NLRC is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
That private respondent shall be entitled to backwages
from termination of employment until turning sixty (60)
years of age (in 1995) and, thereupon, to retirement
benefits in accordance with law; that private respondent
shall be paid an additional amount of P5,000.00; that the

AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
16

Felix Uy vs COA Petitioners were among the more than 60 permanent
employees of the Provincial Engineering Office, Province of
March 21, 2000 | Agusan del Sur, who were dismissed from the service by
Puno, J. then Governor Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. when the latter
assumed office, allegedly to scale down the operations of
the said office. On July 11, 1988, a petition for reinstatement
was filed by petitioners before the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB), docketed as MSPB Case No. 91-1739,
alleging that Governor Paredes was motivated by political
vengeance when he dismissed them and hired new
employees to replace them. It appears that during the
pendency of the petition for reinstatement, Governor
Paredes issued Memorandum Order No. 3-A dated March
20, 1989 providing for the hiring of casual employees to
replace the dismissed employees, allegedly due to exigency
of service.
The governor specifically denied the allegations of
petitioners that their dismissal was illegal.
The MPSB rendered a decision holding that the reduction in
workforce was not done in accordance with civil service
rules and regulations, and ordering the reinstatement of
petitioners.
The MPSB issued an Order directing the Provincial
Government of Agusan del Sur to pay petitioners their back
salaries and other money benefits for the period that they
had been out of service until their reinstatement. Later on,
the Provincial Governor of Agusan del Sur was ordered to
reinstate the dismissed employees but the governor refused
to do so. An Order was issued by the MSPB directing the
Governor to show cause why he should not be declared in
contempt. The matter was then raised to the CSC which
issued an Order directing the Governor to reinstate he
employees with the caveat that should he fail to do so, the
CSC would be constrained to initiate contempt proceedings
AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
award of moral and exemplary damages are deleted; and
that the liability herein pronounced shall be due from
petitioner bank alone, the other petitioners being absolved
from solidary liability.
Whether respondent COA, in the exercise of its power to While administrative
audit, can disallow the payment of back wages of illegally agencies exercising quasi-
dismissed employees by the Provincial Government of judicial powers are not hide
Agusan del Sur which has been decreed pursuant to a bound by technical
final decision of the Civil Service Commission. procedures, nonetheless,
they are not free to disregard
We hold that respondent COA is bereft of power to the basic demands of due
disallow the payment of petitioners' back wages. process. Notice to enable the
other party to be heard and to
FIRST. The ruling of the respondent COA is based on its present evidence is not a
finding that bad faith attended the dismissal of petitioners. mere technicality or a trivial
In arriving at this conclusion, respondent COA relied matter in any administrative
solely on the MSPB decision. A careful perusal of said proceedings but an
Decision will disclose that the MSPB never made a indispensable ingredient of
categorical finding of fact that former Governor due process. It would be
Paredes acted in bad faith and hence, is personally unfair for COA to hold former
liable for the payment of petitioners' back wages. Governor Paredes personally
Indeed, the MSPB even found that there was lack of liable for the claims of
funds which would have justified the reduction in the petitioners amounting to
workforce were it not for the procedural infirmities in millions of pesos without
its implementation. giving him an opportunity to
be heard and present
SECOND. The case at bar brings to the fore the evidence in his defense.
parameters of the power of the respondent COA to decide
administrative cases involving expenditure of public
funds. Undoubtedly, the exercise of this power involves
the quasi-judicial aspect of government audit.
Accordingly, the fundamental requirements of
procedural due process cannot be violated in
proceedings before the COA. In the case at bar, former
Governor Paredes was never made a party to nor
served a notice of the proceedings before the COA. Our
rulings holding that public officials are personally
liable for damages arising from illegal acts done in
bad faith are premised on said officials having been
sued both in their official and personal capacities.
17
 against him and other responsible officials. e CSC actually
initiated indirect contempt proceedings against the
Provincial Governor who was by then Democrito Plaza. This
prompted Governor Plaza to comply, and herein petitioners
were finally reinstated to their former positions.
the Provincial Administrator, for and in behalf of Governor
Plaza, wrote a letter to respondent COA through the
Provincial Auditor, inquiring on whether or not the MPSB
decision was final, WoN CoA is the only proper authority to
determine disbursement of such is in order, and WoN
Paredes is personally liable.
COA rendered its decision which stated that Paredes is
personally liable. As a result, the Provincial Government of
Agusan del Sur refused to release petitioners remaining
back salaries and other monetary benefits.
AZIS | CABREROS | DISOMANGCOP | ESTIOCO | MONTEMAYOR | MONTERO | REAL | SAISES | TAMAYO | YAMAT
THIRD. There is a further impediment in the exercise
of the audit power of the respondent COA. The MSPB
decision of January 29, 1993 became final and
executory when the Provincial Government of Agusan
del Sur failed to appeal within the reglementary
period. To be sure, the decision has already been
partially executed as the Acting Provincial Treasurer had
paid petitioners some of their backwages. Again, our
undeviating jurisprudence is that final judgments may
no longer be reviewed or in any way modified directly
or indirectly by a higher court, not even by the
Supreme Court, much less by any other official,
branch or department of Government.
FOURTH. We subscribe to the time-honored doctrine that
estoppel will not lie against the State. In the case of CIR v.
CA, et al., however, we held that "admittedly the
government is not estopped from collecting taxes legally
due because of mistakes or errors of its agents. But like
other principles of law, this admits of exceptions in
the interest of justice and fair play, as where injustice
will result to the taxpayer." In the case at bar, a stringent
application of the rule exempting the state from the
equitable principle of estoppel will prejudice petitioners
who are lowly employees of government.
18