Case Digest (G.R. No. 204172) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Hon. Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr., in his official capacity as the Acting Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), along with other officials from the DPWH, against respondents Alvaro Y. Apurillo, Erda P. Gabriana, Jocelyn S. Jo, Iraida R. Lastimado, and Francisco B. Vinegas, Jr., who were officials and members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the DPWH. The events leading to this case unfolded on October 17, 2005, when Juanito R. Alama, the Assistant Head of the BAC-Technical Working Group (BAC-TWG) at DPWH in Tacloban City, received an anonymous complaint alleging that R.M. Padillo Builders (RMPB) had won the bidding for the Lirang Revetment Project despite not being on the list of Registered Construction Firms (RCF) recognized to participate in the bidding process.
Subsequently, on October 26, 2005, Alama communicated this complaint to Atty. Oliver T. Rodulfo, the head of the Intern
... Case Digest (G.R. No. 204172) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In October 2005, an anonymous complaint was received by a DPWH official alleging that R.M. Padillo Builders, a local contractor not listed in the Registered Construction Firms, had won the bidding for the Lirang Revetment Project. Acting on this tip, DPWH officials initiated an investigation. On November 8, 2005, a subpoena was issued to obtain pertinent documents regarding the bidding process. The investigation, conducted by Atty. Oliver T. Rodulfo, confirmed that the contractor was not duly registered. Consequently, Acting Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr. issued a Formal Charge on December 22, 2005, against several DPWH officials and BAC members, imposing preventive suspension for 90 days and requiring them to file a written answer with supporting evidence.Respondents, in their initial filings dated January 13, 2006, contended that they were not provided an adequate opportunity to comment on the anonymous complaint and that the mandated preliminary investigation under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS) was not conducted prior to the issuance of the Formal Charge. Despite their subsequent filings and explicit waiver of their right to a formal hearing, respondents maintained that the charge lacked the necessary due process. They further petitioned for certiorari and prohibition before the RTC, arguing that their right to be heard was compromised. The RTC, later on August 5, 2010, set aside the Formal Charge on account of these due process violations, a ruling subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its May 31, 2012 decision. The CA held that the failure to provide respondents with an opportunity to comment during a preliminary investigation amounted to a violation of their administrative due process rights, notwithstanding their waiver to a formal hearing.
Issues:
The pivotal issue before the Court was whether or not the respondents’ rights to procedural (administrative) due process were violated when the DPWH issued a Formal Charge without first conducting a preliminary investigation or affording them an opportunity to comment on the anonymous complaint. Linked to this was whether respondents’ waiver of the formal hearing, as demonstrated in their answer, effectively cured any procedural lapses and whether they were subsequently estopped from challenging these lapses.Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)