Case Digest (G.R. No. 177875)
Facts:
Atty. Rodolfo D. Mateo v. Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo, et al., G.R. No. 177875, August 08, 2016, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner, Atty. Rodolfo D. Mateo, was first employed by the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) on May 28, 1990 as Attorney IV and later appointed Executive Director, taking oath on January 29, 2002. On April 4, 2003, thirty‑eight NWRB employees (the respondents) filed a complaint with the Presidential Anti‑Graft Commission (PAGC) accusing Mateo of dishonesty (for failing to disclose a prior criminal conviction in his Personal Data Sheet), usurpation of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service, among other administrative acts (unauthorized reassignments, suspensions, and issuance of permits/certificates).
The PAGC required Mateo to answer; he filed a verified answer on May 26, 2003 and participated in formal hearings, but he did not submit a memorandum when ordered. The PAGC’s June 25, 2003 resolution found him administratively liable. Factually, the PAGC noted Mateo had been convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Manila on August 10, 1976 (sentenced to reclusion temporal and ordered to pay indemnity), later granted a conditional pardon by President Marcos on June 12, 1979 and discharged in July 1979; his PDS entries in 1997 and 2000 marked “No” to the question whether he had been convicted of any crime. The PAGC concluded the nondisclosure was dishonest and that the reclusion temporal carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification unless expressly remitted by a pardon; because the pardon on record did not expressly restore eligibility for public office, his appointments were impermissible. The PAGC also found he had exceeded delegated authority (approving 324 water permit applications beyond the 0.05 LPS limit set by Board Resolution) and issued transfers and suspensions without Board approval, amounting to grave misconduct. The PAGC recommended dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from government employment.
The matter was transmitted to the Office of the President (OP). By resolution dated August 20, 2003, Deputy Executive Secretary Arthur P. Autea concurred with the PAGC, emphasizing that the charge of dishonesty alone warranted dismissal even if committed for the first time, and affirmed dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits (noting that perpetual disqualification already attached by reason of the criminal penalty). Mateo moved for reconsideration, asserting he had been granted an absolute pardon by President Corazon C. Aquino on May 27, 1987 which eradicated the conviction; he also claimed lack of formal hearings. The OP denied reconsideration, holding (inter alia) that formal hearings had been conducted, Mateo had failed to plead or prove the alleged absolute pardon during the administrative proceedings, and the pardon being a private act of the President had to be pleaded and proved by the grantee.
Mateo filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 80689). The CA, in a decision promulgated October 30, 2006 (pened by Justice Arturo G. Tayag, retired), denied the petition and affirmed...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Mateo denied administrative due process—specifically, the right to confront his accusers—when the PAGC/OP conducted hearings and based discipline on affidavits/position papers?
- Was the penalty of dismissal (with forfeiture of retirement benefits) warranted on the facts, particularly given Mateo’s claim of an absolute pardon and the alleged excess of authori...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)