Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
It is not disputed that ACWS had in fact applied for a franchise with Resort to Mandamus and Prohibition was Premature
the 9th Congress of the Philippines but failed to submit the necessary The NTC in its Order dated February 26, 1998 gave ACWS ten days
supporting documents. The Committee on Legislative Franchises from receipt to file an answer. On March 17, 1998, ACWS filed an
issued a certification attesting to this fact. It was then that the NTC, answer. Upon ACWSs request, a hearing was held on April 22,
now acting as a three-member commission, inquired why ACWS 1998. Upon ACWSs motion, a continuance to June 8, 1998 was
failed to submit the documents. The NTC also warned ACWS about granted. ACWS filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition with
the probable recall of its assigned frequency for failure to secure a the Court of Appeals on May 15, 1998, thirteen days after the first
legislative franchise as required by Act No. 3846. hearing and twenty-four days before the scheduled second hearing.
Under these circumstances, the NTC could hardly be expected to
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies is Fatal have acted on the issues and corrected itself. Clearly, ACWS filed
Before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first the petition prematurely.
avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes. [16]
The special civil actions of prohibition and mandamus are procedural due process refers to the method or manner by which the
extraordinary remedies that a party can resort to only in cases of law is enforced, while substantive due process requires that the law
extreme necessity where the ordinary forms of procedure are itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced,
powerless to afford relief and where there is no other clear, adequate is fair, reasonable, and just.[19]
and speedier remedy. In this case, NTC Administrative Case No. 98- ACWS argues that NTC failed to observe due process in the
009 was the adequate, speedier and less expensive remedy to issuance of the Order dated February 26, 1998 because ACWS did
secure the reliefs sought. not receive the letter dated November 17, 1998[20]mentioned in the
It is basic that a partys failure to exhaust administrative remedies is Order. The letter required petitioner to submit its new congressional
fatal, especially where the case involves not just issues of law and of franchise within 30 days from expiration of the temporary permit to
fact but of administrative discretion. The available administrative be renewed. The letter did not refer to Channel 25 but to the radio
procedures must be pursued until a definite and final determination is stations maintained and operated by ACWS. ACWS likewise assails
held.[18] the directive to cease and desist from operating Channel 25.
Litis Pendentia also Fatal to Petitioners Cause Obviously, ACWS is referring to the procedural aspect of the due
In its Memorandum filed before this Court on December 14, 1999, process clause.
ACWS claims that the NTC has already decided NTC Administrative Notice and hearing are fundamental requirements of procedural due
Case No. 98-009. ACWS further claims that it filed an appeal under process when an administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals from functions. Both were complied with in this case.
the NTCs decision in the administrative case. There are in effect two It is of no moment that ACWS did not receive the letter dated
cases pending between the same parties for the same causes of November 17, 1998. What is important is that ACWS received the
action and reliefs, one in the Court of Appeals and the other in this Order dated February 26, 1998 requiring it to show cause why its
Court. permit to operate Channel 25 should not be cancelled. In any case,
If we resolve this case on the merits while ACWSs appeal is pending the Court has maintained a clear position with regard to the due
before the Court of Appeals, the duplicity of suits would result in process requirements in administrative cases, that is -
confusion and the possibility of conflicting decisions could arise. For (a)s long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests
an orderly administration of justice, ACWSs appeal now pending in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process
before the Court of Appeals should be resolved first considering that of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due
the appeal is from a decision of the NTC on the merits of the case. process.Moreover, this constitutional mandate is deemed
satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek
No Denial of Due Process reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. [21]
Neither could ACWS plead denial of due process as justification for (Emphasis supplied).
its immediate resort to the court. Section 1 of the Bill of Rights lays The NTC afforded ACWS an opportunity to be heard by requiring it
down what is known as the due process clause of the Constitution, to submit an answer and by conducting hearings on the matter. All
thus: told, ACWS had an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property Order dated February 26, 1998 before the NTC.
without due process of law, x x x.
In order to fall within the protection of this provision, two conditions
must concur, namely, that there is a deprivation and that such
deprivation is done without proper observance of due process. When
one speaks of due process of law, a distinction must be made
between matters of procedure and matters of substance. In essence,
Marcelo vs Bungubung management must accord the employee to prepare adequately for
his defense.
Bungubung took advantage of his position as Chairman of the
PDSBAC of the PPA, using it as leverage in soliciting cash and a After the filing of the Complaint, Bungubung was allowed by the
Mitsubishi Pajero van from the bidders as consideration for the Ombudsman to submit the following: (a) a counter-affidavit refuting
award of the security contract. the charges against him; (b) a rejoinder-affidavit; and (c) a Motion for
Reconsideration of the 11 January 2005 Order of the Ombudsman.
Before proceeding to the merits of the instant Petition, this Court Moreover, Bungubung had the option to subject the case to a formal
deems it necessary to first address the allegation of Bungubung that investigation, but his Manifestation dated 21 February 2002 before
he was denied due process by the Ombudsman. The fact that no the Ombudsman was evidence that he did not choose to do so and,
formal hearing took place is not sufficient ground to say that due instead, agreed to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the
process was not afforded Bungubung. It is well-settled that in affidavits on record. These facts establish that Bungubung was not
administrative proceedings, including those before the Ombudsman, deprived of his right to due process, having ample opportunity to
cases may be submitted for resolution on the basis of affidavits and present his side before the Ombudsman. In fact, it was only later on
pleadings. The standard of due process that must be met in in a Manifestation filed on 25 February 2002 that Doromal changed
administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as his mind and informed the Ombudsman that he was opting instead
fairness is not ignored. It is, therefore, not legally objectionable for for the conduct of a formal investigation.
being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve
a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary Substantial evidence and laid down guidelines relative to the conduct
evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take of judicial review of decisions rendered by administrative agencies in
the place of their direct testimonies.[20] Undoubtedly, due process in the exercise of their quasi-judicial power, viz:
administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side or
an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling x x x Substantial evidence is more than a mere
complained of,[21] which requirement was afforded Bungubung.[22] scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
In Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. National Labor support a conclusion, even if other minds equally
Relations Commission,[23] this Court held that: reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.
[A]ctual adversarial proceeding becomes necessary only for Second, in reviewing administrative decisions of the
clarification or when there is a need to propound searching questions executive branch of the government, the findings of
to unclear witnesses. This is a procedural right which the employee facts made therein are to be respected so long as
must, however, ask for it is not an inherent right, and summary they are supported by substantial evidence. Hence, it
proceedings may be conducted. This is to correct the common but is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting
mistaken perception that procedural due process entails lengthy oral evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or
arguments. Hearings in administrative proceedings and before quasi- otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the
judicial agencies are neither oratorical contests nor debating administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency
skirmishes where cross examination skills are displayed. Non-verbal of evidence. Third, administrative decisions in
devices such as written explanations, affidavits, positions papers or matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be
other pleadings can establish just as clearly and concisely aggrieved set aside on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud,
parties predicament or defense. What is essential is ample or error of law. These principles negate the
opportunity to be heard, meaning, every kind of assistance that
power of the reviewing court to re-examine the findings specific to the protested municipalities involved, there were
sufficiency of the evidence in an administrative case no annexes or attachments to the complaint filed. As stated in the
as if originally instituted therein, and do not authorize Joint Committee’s Order dated November 15, 2011 denying GMA’s
the court to receive additional evidence that was not Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam, Senator Pimentel was ordered to
submitted to the administrative agency concerned. furnish petitioners with all the supporting evidence. However,
Senator Pimentel manifested that he was adopting all the affidavits
The fundamental rule in administrative proceedings is that the attached to the Fact-Finding Team’s Initial Report. Therefore, when
complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, GMA was furnished with the documents attached to the Initial
the allegations in his complaint. Report, she was already granted the right to examine as guaranteed
by the Comelec Rules of Procedure and the Rules on Criminal
Within the field of administrative law, while strict rules of evidence Procedure. Those were the only documents submitted by the
are not applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings, nevertheless, in complainants to the Committee. If there are other documents that
adducing evidence constitutive of substantial evidence, the basic rule were referred to in Senator Pimentel’s complaint but were not
that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be disregarded. submitted to the Joint Committee, the latter considered those
documents unnecessary at that point (without foreclosing the
After evaluating the totality of evidence on record, this Court reaches relevance of other evidence that may later be presented during the
the inescapable conclusion that complainant Doromal failed to trial) as the evidence submitted before it were considered adequate
present substantial evidence that Bungubung is administratively to find probable cause against her. x x x
liable for grave misconduct.
Neither was GMA’s right violated when her motion for extension of
time within which to submit her counter-affidavit and countervailing
Arroyo vs DOJ evidence was consequently denied. The Rules use the term "shall" in
requiring the respondent to submit counter-affidavit and other
The procedure in conducting the preliminary investigation is countervailing evidence within ten (10) days from receipt of the
governed by Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure subpoena. It is settled that the use of the word "shall" which is a
and Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. Under both Rules,46 word of command, underscores the mandatory character of the
the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his rule.50 As in any other rule, though, liberality in the application may
witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his be allowed provided that the party is able to present a compelling
defense, within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena, with the justification for the non-observance of the mandatory rules. In the
complaint and supporting affidavits and documents.47 Also in both 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors, investigating prosecutors
Rules, respondent is given the right to examine evidence, but such allow or grant motions or requests for extension of time to submit
right of examination is limited only to the documents or evidence counter-affidavits when the interest of justice demands that
submitted by complainants which she may not have been furnished respondent be given reasonable time or sufficient opportunity to
and to copy them at her expense.48 engage the services of counsel; examine voluminous records
As to the alleged denial of GMA’s right to examine documents, we submitted in support of the complaint or undertake research on
maintain that no right was violated in view of the limitation of such novel, complicated or technical questions or issues of law and facts
right as set forth above. We reiterate our explanation in the assailed of the case.51
decision, to wit: In this case, GMA claimed that she could not submit her
While it is true that Senator Pimentel referred to certain election counteraffidavit within the prescribed period because she needed to
documents which served as bases in the allegations of significant examine documents mentioned in Senator Pimentel’s complaint-
affidavit. It appeared, however, that said documents were not Finally, in our assailed decision, we already took judicial notice that
submitted to the Joint Committee and the only supporting documents not only did GMA enter a plea of "not guilty," she also filed a Motion
available were those attached to the Initial Report of the Fact-Finding for Bail and after due hearing, it was granted. Apparently, she
Team. Admittedly, GMA was furnished those documents. Thus, at benefited from the RTC Order giving her temporary liberty. In filing
the time she asked for the extension of time within which to file her the motion before the RTC and actively participating therein, she has
counter-affidavit, she very well knew that the documents she was chosen to seek judicial remedy before the RTC where the electoral
asking were not in the record of the case. Obviously, she was not sabotage case is pending instead of the executive remedy of going
furnished those documents because they were not submitted to the back to the Joint Committee for the submission of her counter-
Joint Committee. Logically, she has no right to examine said affidavit and countervailing evidence. Besides, as thoroughly
documents. We cannot, therefore, fault the Joint Committee in discussed in the assailed decision, the irregularity or even the
consequently denying her motion for extension to file counter- absence of preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of
affidavit as there was no compelling justification for the non- the information filed against her.
observance of the period she was earlier required to follow.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motions for
And as we held in the assailed decision: Reconsideration are DENIED for lack of merit.
There might have been overzealousness on the part of the Joint
Committee in terminating the investigation, endorsing the Joint Guzman vs NU
Resolution to the Comelec for approval, and in filing the information
in court. Immediately apparent from a reading of respondents' comment and
However, speed in the conduct of proceedings by a judicial or memorandum is the fact that they had never conducted proceedings
quasijudicial officer cannot per se be instantly attributed to an of any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had
injudicious performance of functions. The orderly administration of indeed led or participated "in activities within the university premises,
justice remains the paramount consideration with particular regard to conducted without prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed
the peculiar circumstances of each case. To be sure, petitioners or disrupted classes therein" 3 or perpetrated acts of "vandalism,
were given the opportunity to present countervailing evidence. coercion and intimidation, slander, noise barrage and other acts
Instead of complying with the Joint Committee’s directive, several showing disdain for and defiance of University authority." 4
motions were filed but were denied by the Joint Committee. Parenthetically, the pendency of a civil case for damages and a
Consequently, petitioners’ right to submit counter-affidavit and criminal case for malicious mischief against petitioner Guzman,
countervailing evidence was forfeited. Taking into account the cannot, without more, furnish sufficient warrant for his expulsion or
constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases and following the debarment from re-enrollment. Also apparent is the omission of
procedures set forth in the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the respondents to cite this Court to any duly published rule of theirs by
Comelec Rules of Procedure, the Joint Committee finally reached its which students may be expelled or refused re-enrollment for poor
conclusion and referred the case to the Comelec. The latter, in turn, scholastic standing.
performed its task and filed the information in court. Indeed, Under the Education Act of 1982, 5 the petitioners, as students, have
petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard. They even the right among others "to freely choose their field of study subject to
actively participated in the proceedings and in fact filed several existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to
motions before the Joint Committee. Consistent with the graduation, except in case of academic deficiency, or violation of
constitutional mandate of speedy disposition of cases, unnecessary disciplinary regulations." 6Petitioners were being denied this right, or
delays should be avoided.52 being disciplined, without due process, in violation of the admonition
in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools 7 that "(n)o penalty
shall be imposed upon any student except for cause as defined in ...
(the) Manual and/or in the school rules and regulations as duly OMB vs Magno
promulgated and only after due investigation shall have been
conducted." 8 This Court is therefore constrained, as in Berina v. In Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and
Philippine Maritime Institute, 9 to declare illegal this act of Detection Group,[36] the Court further warned that:
respondents of imposing sanctions on students without due
investigation. The court or the quasi-judicial agency must be detached and
impartial, not only when hearing and resolving the case before it, but
Educational institutions of course have the power to "adopt and even when its judgment is brought on appeal before a higher court.
enforce such rules as may be deemed expedient for ... (its) The judge of a court or the officer of a quasi-judicial agency must
government, ... (this being)" incident to the very object of keep in mind that he is an adjudicator who must settle the
incorporation, and indispensable to the successful management of controversies between parties in accordance with the evidence and
the college." 10 The rules may include those governing student the applicable laws, regulations, and/or jurisprudence. His judgment
discipline. Indeed, the maintenance of "good school discipline" is a should already clearly and completely state his findings of fact and
duty specifically enjoined on "every private school" by the Manual of law. There must be no more need for him to justify further his
Regulations for Private Schools; 11 and in this connection, the judgment when it is appealed before appellate courts. When the
Manual further provides that- court judge or the quasi-judicial officer intervenes as a party in the
... The school rules governing discipline and the corresponding appealed case, he inevitably forsakes his detachment and
sanctions therefor must be clearly specified and defined in writing impartiality, and his interest in the case becomes personal since his
and made known to the students and/or their parents or guardians. objective now is no longer only to settle the controversy between the
Schools shall have the authority and prerogative to promulgate such original parties (which he had already accomplished by rendering his
rules and regulations as they may deem necessary from time to time judgment), but more significantly, to refute the appellants assignment
effective as of the date of their promulgation unless otherwise of errors, defend his judgment, and prevent it from being overturned
specified. 12 on appeal.
But, to repeat, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires
observance of procedural due process. And it bears stressing that The administrative charges against Magno, arising from his alleged
due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail violation of Sections 3(e) and (f) of Republic Act No. 3019, were
proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and Misconduct and Oppression. Magno, in his pleadings filed before the
proceedings in courts of justice. The proceedings in student Ombudsman, argued and presented evidence based on such
discipline cases may be summary; and cross-examination is not, charges. However, the Ombudsman finally adjudged him to be guilty
'contrary to petitioners' view, an essential part thereof. There are of Grave Misconduct for which he was ordered dismissed from
withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands service.
of procedural due process; and these are, that (1) the students must
be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrongful conduct. It is
against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies
be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. It generally means
right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated,
must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official obstinate or intentional purpose. The term, however, does not
designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent. To constitute an
administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected We sustain the ruling of the Court of Appeals that: (a) a basic
with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public requirement of due process is that a person must be duly informed of
officer. On the other hand, when the elements of corruption, clear the charges against him and that (b) a person can not be convicted
intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are of a crime with which he was not charged.
manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.[38]
Administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and
Simple Misconduct is distinct and separate from Grave Misconduct. fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process
The Court clarified in Landrito v. Civil Service Commission[39] that in in investigations and hearings.
grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant The right to substantive and procedural due process is applicable in
disregard of established rule, must be manifest. administrative proceedings.