Case Digest (G.R. No. 204172)
Facts:
Petitioners Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr. and other DPWH officials challenged a Court of Appeals decision affirming an RTC resolution that set aside the DPWH Formal Charge with Preventive Suspension dated December 22, 2005 issued against respondents Alvaro Y. Apurillo, Erda P. Gabriana, Jocelyn S. Jo, Iraida R. Lastimado, and Francisco B. Vinegas, Jr., DPWH officials and BAC members. The Formal Charge stemmed from an anonymous complaint that R.M. Padillo Builders won the Lirang Revetment Project despite allegedly not being included in the Registered Construction Firms, and petitioners alleged administrative due process defects such as failure to conduct a proper preliminary investigation and to require respondents to comment on the anonymous complaint.After issuance of the Formal Charge, respondents filed an Answer and expressly waived their right to a formal hearing, seeking decision based on the records submitted. Without waiting for administrative action, they filed a certiorar
Case Digest (G.R. No. 204172)
Facts:
- Parties and nature of the controversy
- Petitioner Hon. Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr., in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), along with Atty. Joel L. Jacob (Officer-in-Charge, Legal Service (DPWH)), Atty. Oliver T. Rodulfo (Head, Internal Affairs Office (DPWH)), and Hon. Jaime A. Pacanan (Regional Director, DPWH Regional Office No. VIII), sought review on certiorari.
- Respondents were Alvaro Y. Apurillo, Erda P. Gabriana, Jocelyn S. Jo, Iraida R. Lastimado, and Francisco B. Vinegas, Jr., who were then DPWH officials and Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) Members.
- The controversy arose from an administrative case in which petitioners issued a Formal Charge with Preventive Suspension against respondents after a complaint alleged that a contractor won the bidding despite not being included in the Registered Construction Firms (RCF) list.
- Origination of the complaint and referral for investigation
- On October 17, 2005, Juanito R. Alama (DPWH Assistant Head of the BAC-Technical Working Group (BAC-TWG)) received an anonymous complaint from an alleged concerned DPWH employee in Tacloban City.
- The anonymous complaint alleged that R.M. Padillo Builders (RMPB), a local contractor, won the bidding for the Lirang Revetment Project, despite non-inclusion in the RCF list qualified to bid.
- On October 26, 2005, Alama sent an indorsement letter to Atty. Oliver T. Rodulfo.
- The indorsement letter cited Department Order No. 2, Series of 2001 (DPWH DO No. 2), which provided that only contractors duly registered in the RCF and holding a valid Contractor’s Registration Certificate issued by the BAC-TWG could participate in any bidding, per the eligibility and bidding invitation requirement.
- Subpoena, investigation, and recommendation
- On November 8, 2005, Atty. Rodulfo issued a Subpoena directing Engr. Gervasio T. Baldos (OIC District Engineer, DPWH Tacloban City Sub-District Engineering Office) to answer/comment and to submit specified documents relating to the award.
- The documents required included the approved BAC composition for calendar year 2005, invitation to bid, eligibility screening, abstract of bids, resolution of award, contract, notice of award, notice to proceed, disbursement voucher (if any), and statement of work accomplished as of November 2005.
- After investigation, Atty. Rodulfo submitted an Investigation Report dated November 21, 2005 to Acting Sec. Ebdane.
- The investigation report found that RMPB was not a duly registered contractor at the time of the bidding.
- Atty. Rodulfo recommended that DPWH sub-district office officials be administratively charged with Gross Misconduct and be placed on preventive suspension for ninety (90) days.
- Issuance of the Formal Charge and preventive suspension
- On December 22, 2005, Acting Sec. Ebdane issued the Formal Charge against respondents (then DPWH officials and BAC members) for Grave Misconduct.
- In the Formal Charge, respondents were:
- Directed to file their answer with supporting evidence;
- Given the option to elect or waive a formal investigation; and
- Placed under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days).
- Respondents received the Formal Charge on January 10, 2006.
- Respondents’ defenses in the administrative case and their waiver
- On January 13, 2006, respondents filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss and to Lift Order of Preventive Suspension (first Answer).
- Respondents argued that they lacked basis to answer because:
- RMPB had allegedly expressed in a duly sworn letter of intent that it was a registered contractor with DPWH; and
- It was not respondents’ duty to determine whether a contractor was registered with the DPWH Notarial Registry of Civil Works Contractors.
- Respondents prayed for dismissal of the Formal Charge and lifting of preventive suspension.
- Respondents expressly waived their rights to a formal hearing and asked that the case be decided based on the records submitted, as reflected in the prayer:
- dismissal of the Formal Charge and lifting of preventive suspension pending dismissal; and
- waiver of formal hearing and decision based on records submitted.
- Respondents’ waiver was expressly invoked to proceed without a formal hearing.
- Reissuance of the Formal Charge and respondents’ insistence on formal investigation
- Five months later (or on June 7, 2006), respondents were re-issued the same Formal Charge.
- Respondents filed an Answer with Manifestation (second Answer) on June 13, 2006.
- In the second Answer, respondents reiterated their previous defenses and added that:
- the DPWH Sub-District Office never required them to submit a counter-affidavit/comment; and
- only Engr. Baldos was subpoenaed to answer/explain alleged irregularities in bidding.
- Respondents further alleged that the Formal Charge failed to state the nature and substance of the charges.
- Respondents demanded that a formal investigation be conducted.
- Judicial intervention before exhaustion of administrative remedies
- Without waiting for DPWH action, respondents filed on June 27, 2006 a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the RTC (Civil Case No. 2006-06-75).
- Respondents alleged violations of due process because:
- they were not made to comment on the anonymous complaint; and
- no preliminary investigation was conducted before issuance of the Formal Charge.
- On June 28, 2006, RTC-Branch 9 issued a temporary restraining order, later converted by RTC-Branch 34 to a writ of preliminary injunction on July 12, 2006.
- Proceedings in the RTC and appeal to the Court of Appeals
- Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss dated December 7, 2006 (though described as dated December 7, 2006), alleging non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and failure to state a cause of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether respondents’ procedural due process rights were violated in the issuance and processing of the Formal Charge and preventive suspension
- Whether respondents were deprived of the opportunity to comment on the anonymous complaint and whether there was no preliminary investigation prior to the Formal Charge, in violation of URACCS and due process.
- Whether respondents were still accorded a “real opportunity to be heard” through pleadings notwithstanding any lapses in the DPWH’s sequence or fact-finding steps.
- Whether respondents were excused from the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies due to alleged due process violation
- Whether an alleged due process violation justified di...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)