G.R. No. 147423 - Oporto vs. Members of the Board of Inquiry and Discipline of the NAPOCOR

Petitioner Tirso Z. Oporto, employed as Principal Engineer C and Quality Assurance Inspector at the National Power Corporation (NPC), was among several co-employees charged with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Gross Neglect of Duty.
The charge stemmed from an alleged falsification in the NPC Inspection and Receiving Report (IRR) No. 002209, alleged to have been signed on November 10, 1994, which incorrectly stated that woodpoles and crossarms were delivered on that date.
Petitioner maintained that the actual delivery dates were November 26, 1994 and February 15, 1995, and that the wrong date was simply a typographical error, claiming reliance on the IRR produced by the property/supply officer.

Petitioner submitted his Answer on December 13, 1996, along with a Joint Position Paper explaining his defense before the NPC’s Board of Inquiry and Discipline, composed of respondents Wilfredo J. Collado, Melburgo S. Chiu (also referred to as Melburgo Chiu), and Jorge (George) Lagera.
The Board conducted an investigation/hearing during which petitioner was given an opportunity to present his side via his Answer and Position Paper, though he did not present additional evidence beyond his initial explanation.
Based on the investigation, the Board found petitioner guilty of Dishonesty, leading NPC President Guido Alfredo A. Delgado to impose a one-year suspension without pay via a letter-decision dated January 20, 1998.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by both the Board and the NPC President (denials dated March 31, 1998).
Petitioner then sought administrative redress by submitting a Memorandum/Appeal Brief dated May 20, 1998, requesting reversal of the Board’s decision and his exoneration, addressed to DOE Secretary and NPC Board Chairman Francisco L. Viray.

On May 28, 1998, petitioner filed a Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the implementation of the suspension pending resolution of his appeal.
On June 3, 1998, the RTC issued a TRO barring the implementation of the suspension.
On July 14, 1998, the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and lack of territorial jurisdiction.
On August 3, 1998, the RTC issued an Order addressing the Motion to Dismiss and the application for the preliminary injunction, denying dismissal on the exhaustion ground by invoking exceptions (such as legal question and urgency), and granting the TRO.
Further judicial orders followed, including the RTC’s issuance on August 4, 1998 of the writ of preliminary injunction, which enjoined the respondents from enforcing the suspension order.
Respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s Order was eventually denied on September 8, 1998.
Petitioner later filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging both administrative proceedings and the RTC’s relief, while also appealing to the DOE Secretary, whose action never materialized in petitioner’s favor.

On May 12, 2000, the CA ruled in favor of the respondents, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies before resorting to judicial intervention.
The CA found that petitioner’s filing of the petition for prohibition while his appeal to the DOE Secretary was pending constituted improper forum shopping.
The CA held that the petitioner had been accorded due process since he was allowed to file his Answer, Joint Position Paper, and Motion for Reconsideration.
Consequently, the CA ordered the RTC to dismiss the petitioner’s case and set aside the earlier RTC orders (including the TRO and preliminary injunction).

Whether petitioner’s constitutional and statutory rights to due process were violated by the NPC Board’s finding of guilt for Dishonesty, given that petitioner claimed no evidence from his side was considered.
Whether the investigation was conducted without affording him the full opportunity to be heard, present contravening evidence, and confront witnesses against him.

Whether the CA erred by granting the respondents’ petition for certiorari that aimed to reverse the RTC’s decision protecting petitioner via a preliminary injunction.
Whether the issuance of the writ of prohibition and the subsequent dismissal ordered by the RTC should have been sustained, particularly considering that petitioner had not exhausted all administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial relief.
Whether petitioner’s simultaneous filing in judicial forums while his administrative appeal was pending constituted an act of forum shopping.