Flores v.

Montemayor

G.R. No. 170146

June 8, 2011

Sec. 14 , Art. 8 of the Constitution: No decision shall be rendered by any court

without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based.

No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall
be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.

FACTS:

This involve the motion for reconsideration of our Decision dated August 25,
2010 setting aside the October 19, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals and
reinstating the Decision dated March 23, 2004 of the Office of the President in O.P.
Case No. 03-1-581, which found the respondent administratively liable for failure to
declare in his 2001 and 2002 Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SSAL) two
expensive cars registered in his name, in violation of Section 7, Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 3019 in relation to Section 8 (A) of R.A. No. 6713. The OP adopted the findings
and recommendations of the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC), including
the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service on respondent, with all
accessory penalties.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not OP committed a gross violation of administrative due process

by its supposed complete reliance on PAGC's finding.

HELD:

1. No, The Court held that the OP did not commit gross violation of
administrative due process by relying on PAGC's finding. Since the OP stated that
they fully agree with the recommendation of PAGC and the legal premises as well as
the factual findings that hold it together. This is valid because the restriction
imposed under Sec 14 Art 8 of the Constitution that No decision shall be rendered
by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which it is based. That Court in this case states that this does not apply to
administrative proceedings and that it only applies to decisions rendered in judicial
proceedings.