Orig Due Process

8/10/2019 Orig Due Process

1/46

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 181974 February 1, 2012

LYN!L F!S"!NG ENTERPR!SES, !NC. a#$%or ROSEN&O S. &E 'OR(),Petitioners,

vs.

)N&RES G. )R!OL), (ESS!E &. )LCOEN&)S, (!MMY '. C)L!N)O )N&

LEOPOL&O G. SE'ULLEN,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERE*,J.:

efore the Court is a Petition for Revie! on Certiorari"of the Decision#of the $ourteenth

Division of the Court of %ppeals in C%&'.R. SP No. ()*(+ dated "* Septeber #**-, rantinthe /rit of Certiorari pra0ed for under Rule 1) of the "((- Revised Rules of Civil Procedure b0

herein respondents %ndres '. %riola, 2essie D. %lcovendas, 2i0 . Calinao and 3eopoldo

Sebullen thereb0 reversin the Resolution of the National 3abor Relations Coission 4N3RC5.

6he dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads7

/8ERE$ORE, preises considered, the Decision dated March 9", #**+ rendered b0 the

National 3abor Relations Coission is hereb0 REVERSED and SE6 %SIDE. In lieu thereof,

the Decision of the 3abor %rbiter is hereb0 REINS6%6ED, e:cept as to the a!ard of attorne0;sfees, !hich is ordered DE3E6ED.9

6he version of the petitioners follo!s7

". 30nvil $ishin Enterprises, Inc. 430nvil5 is a copan0 enaed in deep&sea fishin,

operatin alon the shores of Pala!an and other outl0in islands of the Philippines.+It is

operated and anaed b0 Rosendo S. de or Elorde a@eA 4a@eA5, oiler> and 3eopoldo D. Sebullen

4Sebullen5, bodeero, conspired !ith one another and stole eiht 4=5 tubs of BpapanoB

and BtaniueB fish and delivered the to another vessel, to the pre


2/46

9. 6he said eplo0ees !ere enaed on a per trip basis or Bpor via


3/46

On ) 2une #**#, 3abor %rbiter Raon Valentin C. Re0es found erit in coplainants; chare of

illeal disissal."16he dispositive portion reads7

/8ERE$ORE, preises considered, 4c5 salar0differential> 4d5 "9th onth pa0> and 4e5 attorne0;s fees, as follo!s7

B"5 %ndres %riolaac?!aes P#9+,***.**

4P1,)**.** : 91 P#9+,***.**5

Separation Pa0 F P-+,1)*.**

"9th Month Pa0 F P1,)**.**

P9#),#)*.**

B#5 2essie %lcovendas

ac?!aes P"(),9#=.**

4P),"+=.** : 91 P"(),9#=.**5

Separation Pa0 F P++,9*+.**

"9th Month Pa0 F ),)9=.**

Salar0 Differential F ",)+-.)#

P#+1,-"-.)#

B95 2i0 Calinao

ac?!aes P#9+,***.**

4P1,)**.** : 91 P#9+,***.**5

Separation Pa0 F )),#)*.**

"9th Month Pa0 F P1,)**.**

P#(),-**.**

B+5 3eopoldo Sebullen

ac?!aes P")+,++*.**

4P+, #(*.** : 91 P")+,++*.**5

Separation Pa0 F P++,*-9.**

"9th Month Pa0 F #,+-9."#

Salar0 Differential F +,+-#.**
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_181974_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_181974_2012.html#fnt16


4/46

P#*=,+))."#

B)5 Isael Nubla

ac?!aes P"((,1+*."#

Separation Pa0 F P)=,"+(.**

"9th Month Pa0 F #,+-9."#

Salar0 Differential F P),)9=.**

P#1), #=."#

6O6%3 P ", 9+", 1)*.-1

%ll other clais are disissed for lac? of erit.B"-

6he 3abor %rbiter found that there !as no evidence sho!in that the private respondents

received the +" ba@eras of BpapanoB as alleed b0 De or and that no

proof !as presented that the = ba@eras of papano Gand taniueH !ere issin at the place ofdestination."=

6he 3abor %rbiter disrearded the Resolution of %ssistant Cit0 Prosecutor Rosauro Silverio on

the theft case. 8e reasoned out that the 3abor Office is overned b0 different rules for the

deterination of the validit0 of the disissal of eplo0ees."(

6he 3abor %rbiter also ruled that the contractual provision that the eplo0ent terinates upon

the end of each trip does not a?e the respondents; disissal leal. 8e pointed out thatrespondents and 30nvil did not neotiate on eual ters because of the oral doinance of the

eplo0er.#*

6he 3abor %rbiter found that the procedural due process !as not coplied !ith and that theere notice iven to the private respondents fell short of the reuireent of Baple opportunit0B

to present the eplo0ees; side.#"

On appeal before the National 3abor Relations Coission, petitioners asserted that private

respondents !ere onl0 contractual eplo0ees> that the0 !ere not illeall0 disissed but !ereaccorded procedural due process and that De or


5/46

8o!ever as above discussed, an adinistrative fine of PhP),***.** for each coplainant,

%ndres %riola, 2essie %lcovendas, 2i0 Canilao, 3eopoldo Sebullen and Isael Nobla or a

total of PhP#),***.** is hereb0 a!arded.#9

6he private respondents e:cept Elorde a@eA filed a Petition for Certiorari#+before the Court of

%ppeals allein rave abuse of discretion on the part of N3RC.

6he Court of %ppeals found erit in the petition and reinstated the Decision of the 3abor %rbiter

e:cept as to the a!ard of attorne0;s fees. 6he appellate court held that the alleation of theft didnot !arrant the disissal of the eplo0ees since there !as no evidence to prove the actual

uantities of the issin ?inds of fish loaded to %nal0n VIII.#)It also reversed the findin of the

N3RC that the disissed eplo0ees !ere erel0 contractual eplo0ees and added that the0!ere reular ones perforin activities !hich are usuall0 necessar0 or desirable in the business

and trade of 30nvil. $inall0, it ruled that the t!o&notice rule provided b0 la! and


6/46

V

68E 8ONOR%3E COR6 O$ %PPE%3S ERRED IN R3IN' 68%6 68E

RESPONDEN6S %RE EN6I63ED 6O 68E P%MEN6 O$ 68EIR MONE C3%IMS.

VI

68E 8ONOR%3E COR6 O$ %PPE%3S ERRED IN $%I3IN' 6O CONSIDER

68%6 PE6I6IONER ROSENDO S. DE OR2% IS NO6 2OIN63 %ND SEVER%33

3I%3E $OR 68E 2D'MEN6 /8EN 68ERE /%S NO $INDIN' O$ %D

$%I68.#1

6he Court;s Rulin

6he Supree Court is not a trier of facts. nder Rule +),#-parties a0 raise onl0 uestions of

la!. /e are not dut0&bound to anal0Ae aain and !eih the evidence introduced in and

considered b0 the tribunals belo!. 'enerall0 !hen supported b0 substantial evidence, thefindins of fact of the C% are conclusive and bindin on the parties and are not revie!able b0

this Court, unless the case falls under an0 of the follo!in reconiAed e:ceptions7

4"5 /hen the conclusion is a findin rounded entirel0 on speculation, surises and

con

4#5 /hen the inference ade is anifestl0 ista?en, absurd or ipossible>

495 /here there is a rave abuse of discretion>

4+5 /hen the

4)5 /hen the findins of fact are conflictin>

415 /hen the Court of %ppeals, in a?in its findins, !ent be0ond the issues of the case

and the sae is contrar0 to the adissions of both appellant and appellee>

4-5 /hen the findins are contrar0 to those of the trial court>

4=5 /hen the findins of fact are conclusions !ithout citation of specific evidence on

!hich the0 are based>

4(5 /hen the facts set forth in the petition as !ell as in the petitionersK ain and repl0

briefs are not disputed b0 the respondents> and

4"*5 /hen the findins of fact of the Court of %ppeals are preised on the supposedabsence of evidence and contradicted b0 the evidence on record. 4Ephasis supplied5#=
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_181974_2012.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_181974_2012.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_181974_2012.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_181974_2012.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_181974_2012.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_181974_2012.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_181974_2012.html#fnt28


7/46

6he contrariet0 of the findins of the 3abor %rbiter and the N3RC prevents reliance on the

principle of special adinistrative e:pertise and provides the reason for


8/46

caprices or suspicions other!ise, the eplo0ee !ould eternall0 reain at the erc0 of the

eplo0er. 3oss of confidence ust not be indiscriinatel0 used as a shield b0 the eplo0er

aainst a clai that the disissal of an eplo0ee !as arbitrar0. %nd, in order to constitute a


9/46

%n eplo0ent shall be deeed to be casual if it is not covered b0 the precedin pararaph7

Provided, 6hat an0 eplo0ee !ho has rendered at least one 0ear of service, !hether such service

is continuous or bro?en, shall be considered a reular eplo0ee !ith respect to the activit0 in!hich he is eplo0ed and his eplo0ent shall continue !hile such activit0 e:ists.

30nvil contends that it cannot be uilt0 of illeal disissal because the private respondents !ereeplo0ed under a fi:ed&ter contract !hich e:pired at the end of the vo0ae. 6he pertinent

provisions of the contract are7

::::

". N% a?o a0 suasan&a0on na alin?od at ua!a n a a!ain san&a0on sa

pata?aran Bpor via

::::

". N% a?o a0 na?ipa?asundo na baba0aran an a?in palilin?od sa paraan Bpor via


10/46

$irst, the fi:ed period of eplo0ent !as ?no!inl0 and voluntaril0 areed upon b0 the parties

!ithout an0 force, duress, or iproper pressure bein brouht to bear upon the eplo0ee and

absent an0 other circustances vitiatin his consent> or

Second, it satisfactoril0 appears that the eplo0er and the eplo0ee dealt !ith each other on

ore or less eual ters !ith no oral doinance e:ercised b0 the forer or the latter.+9

6e:tuall0, the provision that7 BN% a?o a0 suasan&a0on na alin?od at ua!a n a

a!ain san&a0on sa pata?aran Bpor via and 4#5 a !ritten notice ofterination served on the eplo0ee indicatin that upon due consideration of all the

circustances, rounds have been established to


11/46

%ppl0in the rule to the facts at hand, !e rant a onetar0 a!ard of P)*,***.** as noinal

daaes, this, pursuant to the fresh rulin of this Court in Culili v. Eastern Counication

Philippines, Inc.+)Due to the failure of 30nvil to follo! the procedural reuireent of t!o&noticerule, noinal daaes are due to respondents despite their disissal for


12/46

eplo0ees !ere disissed for


13/46

9. Respondent;s constitutional riht to due process !as violated.

+. Penalties prescribed b0 the 8onorable Court is too harsh and severe on the alleed

offense coittedJoitted."

On the first round, the Court finds it bereft of erit. Respondent asserts that since the P%'Cchare involvin non&declaration in his #**" and #**# SS%3 !as alread0 the sub


14/46

judicatadid not set in because there is no identit0 of causes of action. Moreover, the decision of

the Obudsan disissin the criinal coplaint cannot be considered a valid and final


15/46

Sandianba0an and, in the e:ercise of this priar0


16/46

6he essence of due process in adinistrative proceedins is the opportunit0 to e:plain one;s side

or see? a reconsideration of the action or rulin coplained of. %s lon as the parties are iven

the opportunit0 to be heard before


17/46

therefore be said that the P%'C and OP proceeded !ith undue haste in deterinin respondent;s

adinistrative uilt.

Still on respondent;s repeated clai that he !as denied due process, it ust be noted that !hen

respondent received a cop0 of the OP Decision dated March #9, #**+, his petition for revie!

filed in this Court assailin the C%;s disissal of C%&'.R. SP No. --#=) !as alread0 deniedunder Resolution dated 2anuar0 #1, #**+. 8o!ever, despite the denial of his petition, respondent

still refused to reconiAe P%'C;s


18/46

is not a court but an adinistrative bod0 deterinin the liabilit0 of respondent !ho !as

adinistrativel0 chared, in the e:ercise of its disciplinar0 authorit0 over presidential appointees.

In Solid 8oes, Inc. v. 3aserna,"(this Court ruled that the rihts of parties in an adinistrative

proceedins are not violated b0 the brevit0 of the decision rendered b0 the OP incorporatin the

findins and conclusions of the 8ousin and 3and se Reulator0 oard 483R5, for as lonas the constitutional reuireent of due process has been satisfied. 6hus7

It ust be stated that Section "+, %rticle VIII of the "(=- Constitution need not appl0 to

decisions rendered in adinistrative proceedins, as in the case aGtH bar. Said section applies onl0

to decisions rendered in


19/46

la! on !hich it is based. $or as lon as the adinistrative decision is rounded on evidence, and

e:pressed in a anner that sufficientl0 infors the parties of the factual and leal bases of the

decision, the due process reuireent is satisfied.

%t bar, the Office of the President apparentl0 considered the Decision of 83R as correct and

sufficient, and said so in its o!n Decision. 6he brevit0 of the assailed Decision !as not theproduct of !illin concealent of its factual and leal bases. Such bases, the assailed Decision

noted, !ere alread0 contained in the 83R decision, and the parties adversel0 affected need

onl0 refer to the 83R Decision in order to be able to interpose an infored appeal or action

for certiorari under Rule 1).1avvphi1

: : : :

%ccordinl0, based on close scrutin0 of the Decision of the Office of the President, this Court

rules that the said Decision of the Office of the President full0 coplied !ith both adinistrative

due process and Section "+, %rticle VIII of the "(=- Philippine Constitution.

6he Office of the President did not violate petitioner;s riht to due process !hen it rendered its

one&pae Decision. In the case at bar, it is safe to conclude that all the parties, includin

petitioner, !ere !ell&infored as to ho! the Decision of the Office of the President !as arrived

at, as !ell as the facts, the la!s and the issues involved therein because the Office of the

President attached to and ade an interal part of its Decision the Decision of the 83R oard

of Coissioners, !hich it adopted b0 reference. If it !ere other!ise, the petitioner !ould not

have been able to lode an appeal before the Court of %ppeals and a?e a presentation of its

aruents before said court !ithout ?no!in the facts and the issues involved in its case.#*

4Ephasis supplied.5

Since respondent repeatedl0 refused to ans!er the adinistrative chare aainst hi despite

notice and !arnin b0 the P%'C, he subitted his evidence onl0 after an adverse decision !as

rendered b0 the OP, attachin the sae to his otion for reconsideration. 6hat the OP denied the

otion b0 sustainin the P%'C;s findins !ithout an0 separate discussion of respondent;s

aruents and belatedl0 subitted evidence onl0 eant that the OP found the sae lac?in in

erit and insufficient to overturn its rulin on respondent;s adinistrative liabilit0.

On the fourth round cited b0 the respondent, !e aintain that the penalt0 of disissal fro the

service is


20/46

BMachineriesJEuipentB or still ortaed, and later averred that these !ere alread0 sold b0

the end of the 0ear covered and the proceeds alread0 spent.

nder this schee, respondent !ould have acuired as an0 assets never to be declared at

an0tie. Such act erodes the function of reuirin accurac0 of entries in the SS%3 !hich ust

be a true and detailed stateent. It underines the SS%3 as Bthe eans to achieve the polic0 ofaccountabilit0 of all public officers and eplo0ees in the overnentB throuh !hich Bthe public

are able to onitor oveent in the fortune of a public official> GasH a valid chec? and balance

echanis to verif0 undisclosed properties and !ealth.B#"

IN VIE/ O$ 68E $ORE'OIN', the otion for reconsideration is DENIED /I68 $IN%3I6.

3et entr0 of


21/46

& versus &

GOERNMENT SER!CE

!NSUR)NCE SYSTEM,

Respondent.

VE3%SCO, 2R.,

3EON%RDO&DE C%S6RO,

RION,

PER%36%,

ERS%MIN,

DE3 C%S6I33O,

%%D,

VI33%R%M%, 2R.,

PERE,

MENDO%,

SERENO,

REES, and

PER3%S&ERN%E,##.

Proulated7

October +, #*""

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

& E C ! S ! O N


22/46

'R!ON,J.>

/e resolve thepetition for revie! on certiorari1G"H filed b0 petitioner

Monico . Iperial, 2r.,fro the Deceber "*, #**( decision#G#Hand the $ebruar0

), #*"* resolution9G9Hof the Court of %ppeals 4CA5 in C%&'.R. SP No. "*"#(-.

T6e Fa+ua- )#+ee$e#+/

On October "(, #**), the 'overnent Service Insurance S0ste 4$%&%5

adinistrativel0 chared the petitioner, then ranch Manaer of the 'SIS Naa

$ield Office, !ithDishonesty $rave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the

'est &nterest o( the %ervice)G+Hfor approvin the reuests for salar0 loans of eiht

'SIS Naa $ield Office eplo0ees !ho lac?ed the contribution reuireents

under 'SIS Polic0 and Procedural 'uidelines 4PP$5 No. ")9&((,)G)Hivin the

un!arranted benefits throuh his evident bad faith, anifest partialit0 or ross

1

2

3

4

5


23/46

nelience, and causin in


24/46

received the (a*ed copy on Au+ust 1) ,-- while he received the re+istered mail

on Au+ust 1/ ,--.

%t the scheduled %uust "-, #**1 pre&hearin conference, the petitioner and %tt0.

Molina failed to appear. %tt0. Molina li?e!ise failed to subit the petitioner;s

verification of the ans!er and to subit a letter of authorit0 to represent the

petitioner in the case. On the prosecution;s otion, the 8earin Officer declared

the petitioner to have !aived his riht to file his ans!er and to have a foral

investiation of his case, and e:puned the unverified ans!er and other pleadinsfiled b0 %tt0. Molina fro the records. 6he case !as then subitted for resolution

based on the prosecution;s subitted docuents."*G"*H

'SIS President and 'eneral Manaer /inston $. 'arcia found the petitioner uilt0

of rave isconduct and conduct pre


25/46

Notin that this !as the petitioner;s second adinistrative offense 4he had

previousl0 been suspended for one G"H 0ear for ross nelect of dut0 for failin to

ipleent the recoendations of the Internal %udit Services 'roup pertainin to

the handlin of returned&to&sender chec?s, resultin in a 'SIS Naa $ield Office

Cashier defraudin the 'SIS of chec?s5, 'arcia iposed the penalt0 of disissal

!ith the accessor0 penalties of forfeiture of retireent benefits, cancellation of

eliibilit0 and perpetual disualification fro re&eplo0ent in the overnent.

On the sae date, the 'SIS oard of 6rustees approved the decision."#G"#H

In a 2une 1, #**- resolution,"9G"9H'arcia denied the petitioner;s otion for

reconsideration, notin that %tt0. Molina had no authorit0 to appear for and in

behalf of the petitioner, havin failed to subit an0 foral !ritten authorit0> that

the petitioner;s ans!er !as unverified> and that, in an0 event, the petitioner had no

evidence sufficient to overturn the evidence presented b0 the prosecution.

6he petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Coission 4C%C5, reiteratin

his aruents of denial of due process and the lac? of evidence aainst hi.

6he CSC re


26/46

process defect there iht have been."+G"+H It noted that the records of the case

sho!ed that the petitioner approved the loan applications despite the patent

ineliibilit0 of the loan applicants. 6he CSC thus affired the petitioner;s

disissal for rave isconduct, but added as an accessor0 penalt0 the prohibition

fro ta?in an0 civil service e:aination.

6he petitioner elevated his case to the C% throuh a petition for revie!

under Rule +9 of the Rules of Court.

In its Deceber "*, #**( decision,")G")H the C% disissed the petition, and denied

the subseuent otion for reconsideration,"1G"1H findin no reversible error in the

challened CSC Resolution.

T6e Pe+5+5o#

In the petition before us, the petitioner arues that he !as denied due process !hen

the %uust "-, #**1 pre&hearin conference !as conducted in his absence !ithout

prior notice of the %uust "", #**1 order den0in the otion for reconsideration of

14

15

16


27/46

the order of chane of venue, since %tt0. Molina received b0 reistered ail a cop0

of the %uust "", #**1 order onl0 on %uust "=, #**1, or a da0 after the %uust

"-, #**1 pre&hearin conference. 6he petitioner pleads ood faith in approvin the

loans based on an e:istin 'SIS oard Resolution !hich authoriAes branch

anaers to approve loans for eritorious and special reasons> the loans !ere

cleared b0 the Coission on %udit and settled b0 the borro!ers. 8e contends

that the penalt0 of disissal is too severe in the absence of an0 !ronful intent and

iven his +* 0ears of overnent service.

T6e Ca/e or Re/o#$e#+ GS!S

6he 'SIS subits that the petitioner !as not denied due process because

%tt0. Molina received on %uust "+, #**1 a fa: cop0 of the %uust "", #**1 order.

On the erits of the case, the 'SIS aintains that the evidence on record dul0

established the petitioner;s adinistrative culpabilit0 for acts iniical to the

interest of the public, !arrantin his disissal fro the service> the penalt0 of

disissal !as !arranted since this !as the petitioner;s second adinistrative

offense.

T6e !//ue/


28/46

6he issues are7 4"5 !hether the petitioner !as denied due process, and 4#5

!hether there !as substantial evidence to support petitioner;s disissal fro the

service.

T6e Cour+?/ Ru-5#

3e P)RT!)LLY GR)NT +6e e+5+5o# a#$ o$5y +6e 5#$5#/ o +6e

C) er+a5#5# +o +6e e+5+5o#er?/ a$5#5/+ra+5e -5ab5-5+y.

The Procedural Due Process Issue

Procedural due process is the constitutional standard deandin that notice

and an opportunit0 to be heard be iven before the essence of due process is in the opportunit0 to be

heard."-G"-H% foral or trial&t0pe hearin is not al!a0s necessar0.

In this case, !hile the petitioner did not participate in the %uust "-, #**1 pre&

hearin conference 4despite receipt on %uust "+, #**1 of a fa: cop0 of the %uust

"", #**1 order5, 'arcia;s decision of $ebruar0 #", #**- dul0 considered and

17


29/46

discussed the defenses raised in %tt0. Molina;s pleadins, althouh the ans!er !as

ordered e:puned fro the records because it !as unverified and because %tt0.

Molina failed to subit a letter of authorit0 to represent the petitioner.

/hat neates an0 due process infirit0 is the petitioner;s subseuent otion

for reconsideration !hich cured !hatever defect the 8earin Officer iht have

coitted in the course of hearin the petitioner;s case. "=G"=H%ain, 'arcia dul0

considered the aruents presented in the petitioner;s otion for reconsideration

!hen he rendered the 2une 1, #**- resolution."(G"(H

6hus, the petitioner !asactuall0 heard throuh his pleadins.

Findings of facts of administrative bodies accorded finality when supported by

substantial evidence

Misconduct has a leal and unifor definition. Misconduct has been defined

as an intentional !rondoin or a deliberate violation of a rule of la! or standard

of behavior, especiall0 b0 a overnent official.#*G#*H % isconduct is rave

!here the eleents of corruption, clear intent to violate the la! or flarant

18

19

20


30/46

disreard of established rule are present.#"G#"H Other!ise, a isconduct is onl0

siple.

No doubt e:ists in our ind that the petitioner coitted isconduct in this

case. 6he records clearl0 sho! that the petitioner coitted the acts coplained

of, i.e., he approved the reuests for salar0 loans of eiht 'SIS Naa $ield Office

eplo0ees !ho lac?ed the necessar0 contribution reuireents under PP' No.

")9&((. %fter a careful revie! of the records, ho!ever, !e disaree !ith the

findins of the 'SIS, the CSC and the C% that the petitioner;s acts constitutedrave isconduct. /hile !e accord reat respect to the factual findins of

adinistrative aencies that isconduct !as coitted, !e cannot characteriAe

the offense coitted as rave. No substantial evidence !as adduced to support

the eleents of Qcorruption, Qclear intent to violate the la! or Qflarant disreard

of established rule that ust be present to characteriAe the isconduct as rave.

/e are a!are that to the CSC, the ere act of approvin the loan

applications on several occasions proves the eleent of flarant disreard of

established rules to constitute rave isconduct. 6hus, it said7

6he act of the appellant in approvin salar0 loan applications of his

subordinates over and above the prescribed rates under the 'SIS polic0, not

onl0 once but several ties, indicates his flarant and !anton transression ofthe said polic0. 8e, in fact, abused his authorit0 in doin so.##G##H

21

22


31/46

$larant disreard of rules is a round that #9G#9H in the repeated voluntar0

disreard of established rules in the procureent of supplies>#+G#+H in the practice

of illeall0 collectin fees ore than !hat is prescribed for dela0ed reistration of

arriaes>#)G#)H !hen several violations or disreard of reulations overnin the

collection of overnent funds !ere coitted>#1G#1H and !hen the eplo0ee

arroated unto herself responsibilities that !ere clearl0 be0ond her iven duties. #-

G#-H T6e oo# $e#o5#a+or 5# +6e/e a/e/ @a/ +6e e-oyee?/ roe#/5+y +o

5#ore +6e ru-e/ a/ -ear-y a#5e/+e$ by 65/ or 6er a+5o#/.

nder the circustances of the present case, !e do not see the t0pe of open

defiance and disreard of 'SIS rules that the CSC observed. In fact, the CSC;s

findins on the petitioner;s actions prior to the approval of the loans neate the

presence of an0 intent on the petitioner;s part to deliberatel0 def0 the polic0 of the

'SIS. $irst, 'SIS branch anaers have been ranted in the past the authorit0 to

approve loan applications be0ond the prescribed reuireents of 'SIS> second,

there !as a custoar0 lenient practice in the approval of loans e:ercised b0 soe

branch anaers not!ithstandin the e:istin 'SIS polic0> and third, the

23

24

25

26

27


32/46

petitioner first souht the approval of his iediate supervisor before actin on

the loan applications. 6hese circustances run counter to the characteristic flarant

disreard of the rules that rave isconduct reuires.

6hus, the petitioner;s liabilit0 under the iven facts onl0 involves siple

isconduct. %s ranch Manaer of the 'SIS Naa $ield Office, he is presued to

?no! all e:istin policies, uidelines and procedures in carr0in out the aenc0;s

andate in the area. 0 approvin the loan applications of eiht 'SIS Naa $ield

Office eplo0ees !ho did not full0 eet the reuired ualifications, he coitteda serious lapse of


33/46

3"EREFORE, preises considered, !e P)RT!)LLY GR)NT the

petition for revie! on certiorariand MO&!FYthe assailed decision and resolution

of the Court of %ppeals. Petitioner Monico . Iperial, 2r. is found 'I36 of

S!MPLE M!SCON&UCT and is hereb0 SUSPEN&E& fro the tie the

preventive suspension that 'SIS iposed lapsed, up to the finalit0 of this

Decision.

SO OR&ERE&.

EN BANC

CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY, G.R. No. 184869

Repe!en"e# $% O&'e(In(C)a*e

D. Ro#i*o L. Mal+n)ao,

Petitioner, Present:

CORONA, C.J.,

CARPIO,

CARPIO MORALE,


34/46

!ELACO, "R.,#

NAC$%RA,#

LEONAR&O'&E CA(RO,#

' )ers*s ' +RION,#

PERAL(A,

+ERAMIN,

&EL CA(ILLO,

A+A&,

!ILLARAMA, "R.,

PERE,

MEN&OA,#-n

ERENO,##JJ.

TE ONORA-LE EECUTIVESECRETARY, TE ONORA-LE

SECRETARY O/ TE DE0ARTMENT

O/ ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL

RESOURCES, TE CAIR0ERSON

AND COMMISSIONERS O/ TE

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

INDIGENOUS 0EO0LES, an# TE

LEAD CONVENOR O/ TE NATIONAL

ANTI(0OVERTY COMMISSION,

Res/onents. Pro*-te:

#

##


35/46

e/teer 21, 2010

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

DECISION

A-AD,J.:

(is -se onerns te onstit*tion-it o - /resienti-

/ro--tion t-t t-es /ro/ert ro - st-te *ni)ersit, o)er its

oetions, or istri*tion to inieno*s /eo/es -n *t*r-

o*nities.

T)e /a'"! an# ")e Ca!e

Petitioner Centr- Min-n-o %ni)ersit ;CM%< is - -rtere

e*-tion- instit*tion o=ne -n r*n te t-te.29>1? In 1958,

te Presient iss*e Presienti- Pro--tion 476, reser)in

3,401 et-res o -ns o te /*i o-in in M*s*-n,

29


36/46

+*inon, -s soo site or CM%. E)ent*-, CM% ot-ine tite

in its n-e o)er 3,080 et-res o tose -ns *ner Oriin-

Certi@-tes o (ite ;OC(s< 0'160, 0'161, -n 0'162. Me-n=ie,

te o)ernent istri*te ore t-n 300 et-res o te

re-inin *ntite -ns to se)er- tries eonin to te -re-s

*t*r- o*nities.

Bort'@)e e-rs -ter or on "-n*-r 7, 2003 Presient ori-

M--/--'Arroo iss*e Presienti- Pro--tion 310 t-t t-es670 et-res ro CM%s reistere -ns or istri*tion to

inieno*s /eo/es -n *t*r- o*nities in +-r-n-

M*s*-n, M-r--, +*inon.

On A/ri 3, 2003, o=e)er, CM% @e - /etition or /roiition--inst res/onents Ee*ti)e eret-r, eret-r o te

&e/-rtent o En)ironent -n N-t*r- Reso*res, C-ir/erson

-n Coissioner o te N-tion- Coission on Inieno*s

Peo/es ;NCIP


37/46

(e NCIP, et alo)e to isiss te -se on te ro*n o

- o *risition o te M---- R(C o)er te -tion, /ointin

o*t t-t sine te -t so*t to e enoine re-tes to -n oDi-

-t o te Ee*ti)e &e/-rtent one in M-ni-, *risition ies

=it te M-ni- R(C. (e M---- R(C enie te otion,

o=e)er, -n /roeee to e-r CM%s -//i-tion or /reiin-r

in*ntion. Me-n=ie, res/onents NCIP, et alo)e or /-rti-

reonsier-tion o te R(Cs orer enin teir otion to

isiss.

On Otoer 27, 2003, -ter e-rin te /reiin-r

in*ntion inient, te R(C iss*e - reso*tion r-ntin NCIP, et

als otion or /-rti- reonsier-tion -n isisse CM%s -tion

or - o *risition. ti, te R(C r*e t-t Presienti-

Pro--tion 310 =-s onstit*tion-, ein - )-i t-te -t. (e

R(C s-i t-t te *ti-te o=ner o te -ns is te t-te -n t-t

CM% ere e te s-e in its e-. CM% @e - otion or

reonsier-tion o te reso*tion *t te R(C enie te s-e on

A/ri 19, 2004. (is /ro/te CM% to -//e- te R(Cs isiss-

orer to te Co*rt o A//e-s ;CA< Min-n-o t-tion.30>2?

CM% r-ise t=o iss*es in its -//e-: 1< =eter or not te

R(C e/ri)e it o its rit to *e /roess =en it isisse te

30


38/46

-tion -n 2< =eter or not Presienti- Pro--tion 310 =-s

onstit*tion-.31>3?

In - M-r 14, 2008 eision,32>4? te CA isisse CM%s

-//e- or - o *risition, r*in t-t CM%s reo*rse so*

-)e een - /etition or re)ie= on certiorari@e iret =it tis

Co*rt, e-*se it r-ise /*re F*estions -=Ge-rin -in on

te onstit*tion-it o Presienti- Pro--tion 310. (e CA

-e t-t =eter te tri- o*rt -n eie te erits o te-se -se soe on te e-rins o te otion to isiss -n

te -//i-tion or in*ntion is -so - /*re F*estion o -=.

CM% @e - otion or reonsier-tion o te CAs orer o

isiss- *t it enie te s-e,33

>5? /ro/tin CM% to @e te/resent /etition or re)ie=.

T)e I!!+e! 0e!en"e#

(e -se /resents te oo=in iss*es:

31

32

33


39/46

1.Heter or not te CA erre in not @nin t-t te R(C

erre in isissin its -tion or /roiition --inst NCIP, et alor

- o *risition -n -t te s-e tie r*in t-t Presienti-Pro--tion 310 is )-i -n onstit*tion-

2. Heter or not te CA orret isisse CM%s

-//e- on te ro*n t-t it r-ise /*re F*estions o -= t-t

-re /ro/er or - /etition or re)ie= @e iret =it tis Co*rt

-n

3. Heter or not Presienti- Pro--tion 310 is )-i

-n onstit*tion-.

T)e Co+"! R+lin*!

One. (e R(C in)oe t=o re-sons or isissin CM%s

-tion. (e @rst is t-t *risition o)er te -tion to e-re

Presienti- Pro--tion 310 ies =it te R(C o M-ni-, not te

R(C o M---- Cit, i)en t-t s* -tion re-tes to oDi-

-ts o te Ee*ti)e one in M-ni-. (e seon re-son,

/res*- -e on te -ss*/tion t-t te M---- R(C -

*risition o)er te -tion, Presienti- Pro--tion 310 =-s

)-i -n onstit*tion- sine te t-te, -s *ti-te o=ner o te

s*et -ns, -s te rit to is/ose o te s-e or soe


40/46

/*r/ose oter t-n CM%s *se.

(ere is notin essenti- =ron -o*t - o*rt oin on

te one -n t-t it -s no *risition o)er - -se, -n on te

oter, -se on -n -ss*/tion t-t it -s *risition, eiin

te -se on its erits, ot =it te s-e res*ts, =i is te

isiss- o te -tion. At -n r-te, te iss*e o te /ro/riet o

te R(C *sin t=o ino/-tie re-sons or isissin te -tion

is --ei. (e CA ro =i te /resent /etition =-s ro*tisisse CM%s -//e- on soe teni- ro*n.

T2o. etion 9;3< o te "*ii-r Reor-ni-tion At o

198034>6? )ests in te CA -//e-te *risition o)er te @n-

*ents or orers o te R(Cs -n F*-si'*ii- oies. +*t=ere -n -//e- ro te R(C r-ises /*re F*estions o -=,

reo*rse so* e - /etition or re)ie= on certiorari @e

iret =it tis Co*rt. (e F*estion in tis -se is =eter or

not CM%s -//e- ro te R(Cs orer o isiss- r-ises /*re

F*estions o -=.

As -re- st-te, CM% r-ise t=o ro*ns or its -//e-: 17? te &ARA+, - n-tion-

o)ernent -en -re =it t-in ot /ri)-te'o=ne

-n o)ernent'o=ne -ri*t*r- -ns or istri*tion to

-rers'ene@i-ries, orere te sere-tion or tis /*r/ose o

35


43/46

400 et-res o CM% -ns. (e Co*rt n*i@e te &ARA+ -tion

onsierin te in-ien-e -r-ter o s* -ns, ein /-rt o

te on ter *ntions o -n -*tonoo*s -ri*t*r- e*-tion-

instit*tion. -i te Co*rt:

T)e 'on!"+'"ion *i3en $% ")e DARA- "o Se'"ion 1

e!"i'"! ")e lan# aea o5 ")e CMU "o i"! pe!en" nee#! o "o a

lan# aea pe!en"l%, a'"i3el% eploi"e# an# +"ili7e# $% ")e

+ni3e!i"% in 'a%in* o+" i"! pe!en" e#+'a"ional po*a 2i")

i"! pe!en" !"+#en" pop+la"ion an# a'a#ei' 5a'ili"%

o3eloo:in* ")e 3e% !i*ni;'an" 5a'"o o5 *o2") o5 ")e

+ni3e!i"% in ")e %ea! "o 'oe. -% ")e na"+e o5 ")e CMU,

2)i') i! a !')ool e!"a$li!)e# "o poo"e a*i'+l"+e an#

in#+!"%, ")e nee# 5o a 3a!" "a'" o5 a*i'+l"+al lan# 5o

5+"+e po*a! o5 epan!ion i! o$3io+!. A" ")e o+"!e", ")e

CMU 2a! 'on'ei3e# in ")e !ae anne a! lan# *an" 'olle*e!

in Aei'a, a "%pe o5 e#+'a"ional in!"i"+"ion 2)i') $la7e# ")e

"ail 5o ")e #e3elopen" o5 3a!" "a'"! o5 +neploe# an#

+n#e3elope# a*i'+l"+al lan#! in ")e Mi#(5oe+nne o5 ")e CMU? a lan# e!e3a"ion

o5 @,8 )e'"ae! a! i"! 5+"+e 'ap+!. I" 2a! !e" +p in-+:i#non, in ")e )in"elan#! o5 Min#anao, in o#e ")a" i" 'an

)a3e eno+*) e!o+'e! an# 2i#e open !pa'e! "o *o2 a! an

a*i'+l"+al e#+'a"ional in!"i"+"ion, "o #e3elop an# "ain 5+"+e

5ae! o5 Min#anao an# )elp a""a'" !e""le! "o ")a" pa" o5

")e 'o+n"%.


44/46

T)e e#+'a"ion o5 ")e %o+") an# a*aian e5o ae

a#i""e#l% aon* ")e )i*)e!" pioi"ie! in ")e *o3enen"

!o'io(e'onoi' po*a!. In ")i! 'a!e, nei")e nee# *i3e 2a%"o ")e o")e. Ce"ainl%, ")ee +!" !"ill $e 3a!" "a'"! o5

a*i'+l"+al lan# in Min#anao o+"!i#e ")e CMU lan# e!e3a"ion

2)i') 'an $e a#e a3aila$le "o lan#le!! pea!an"!, a!!+in*

")e 'laian"! )ee, o !oe o5 ")e, 'an +ali5% a! CAR0

$ene;'iaie!. To o+ in#, ")e "a:in* o5 ")e CMU lan# 2)i')

)a# $een !e*e*a"e# 5o e#+'a"ional p+po!e! 5o #i!"i$+"ion

"o %e" +n'e"ain $ene;'iaie! i! a *o!! i!in"epe"a"ion o5

")e a+")oi"% an# B+i!#i'"ion *an"e# $% la2 "o ")e DARA-.

T)e #e'i!ion in ")i! 'a!e i! o5 5a(ea')in* !i*ni;'an'e a!5a a! i" 'on'en! !"a"e 'olle*e! an# +ni3e!i"ie! 2)o!e

e!o+'e! an# e!ea') 5a'ili"ie! a% $e *a#+all% eo#e# $%

i!'on!"+in* ")e eep"ion! 5o ")e CAR0. T)e!e !"a"e

'olle*e! an# +ni3e!i"ie! ae ")e ain 3e)i'le! 5o o+

!'ien"i;' an# "e')nolo*i'al a#3an'een" in ")e ;el# o5

a*i'+l"+e, !o 3i"al "o ")e ei!"en'e, *o2") an# #e3elopen"

o5 ")i! 'o+n"%.@6>8?

It i not -tter t-t it =-s Presient Arroo =o, in tis

-se, -tte/te /ro--tion to -//ro/ri-te te -ns or

istri*tion to inieno*s /eo/es -n *t*r- o*nities. As

-re- st-te, te -ns teir -r-ter -)e eoe

in-ien-e ro te oent Presient -ri- ei-te te or

CM%s *se in sienti@ -n tenooi- rese-r in te @e o

-ri*t*re. (e -)e e-se to e -ien-e /*i -ns.

36


45/46

+esies, =en Conress en-te te Inieno*s Peo/es

Rits At ;IPRA< or Re/*i At 837137>9? in 1997, it /ro)ie in

etion 56 t-t K/ro/ert rits =itin te -nestr- o-ins

-re- eistin -nor )este */on its eeti)it Ks- e

reonie -n res/ete. In tis -se, o=nersi/ o)er te

s*et -ns - een )este in CM% -s e-r -s 1958.

ConseF*ent, tr-nserrin te -ns in 2003 to te inieno*s

/eo/es -ro*n te -re- is not in -or =it te IPRA.

B*rterore, te -n reistr-tion o*rt onsiere te

-is o se)er- tries eonin to te -re-s *t*r-

o*nities in te o*rse o te /roeeins or te titin o te

-ns in CM%s n-e. Inee, e)ent*-, on 3,080 et-res

=ere tite in CM%s n-e *ner OC(s 0'160, 0'161 -n 0'162.

More t-n 300 et-res =ere -no=ee to e in te

/ossession o -n s*et to te -is o tose tries.


46/46

SO ORDERED.

Documents

Orig Due Process