G.R. No. 129644 - China Banking Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner: Capt. Wilfredo G. Roquero, an employee of UP-Manila assigned at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) Security Division as Special Police Captain.
Private Respondent: Imelda O. Abutal, a Lady Guard from the Ex-Bataan Security Agency, who was applying for a position in the UP-PGH security force.
Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) of UP-Manila, composed of Atty. Zaldy B. Docena (Chairman), Eden Perdido, and Isabella Lara, was tasked to resolve the administrative case.

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Imelda Abutal against Capt. Roquero before the then Chancellor of UP-Manila, Perla D. Santos-Ocampo.
The formal administrative charge filed on 1 October 1998 accused Capt. Roquero of Grave Misconduct for allegedly propositioning Abutal for sexual favors in exchange for facilitating her application and giving her a permanent position.
The specific charge was anchored on Section 22, paragraph (c) of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 on Civil Rules.

On 1 October 1998, pursuant to the formal charge, Capt. Roquero was placed under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days by Chancellor Santos-Ocampo.
The preventive suspension order also required Capt. Roquero to appear before the ADT as needed.

The ADT was formed to hear the complaint, with Atty. Zaldy B. Docena leading the tribunal.
The prosecution was initially represented by Atty. Paul A. Flor, later replaced by Atty. Asteria Felicen.
Capt. Roquero was represented by Atty. Leo G. Lee of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), and subsequently by Public Attorney Philger Inovejas.

The prosecution presented its only witness, Imelda Abutal.
After cross-examination, the prosecution agreed to submit its Formal Offer of Evidence by 16 July 1999.
However, the prosecution failed to timely submit the offer.
The case hearings were reset multiple times on dates (11 August and 21 August 1999) after the prosecution failed to appear.
On 11 August 1999, only Capt. Roquero appeared while the prosecution continued to delay, opting for postponement via telephone requests.

On 22 October 1999, Capt. Roquero filed a motion to declare that Abutal had waived her right to submit her Formal Offer due to her failure to file within the prescribed period.
The ADT, however, did not rule on this motion for almost five years.
On 19 May 2004, Capt. Roquero filed another Motion to Dismiss the case based on the prolonged delay and the absence of a timely formal offer from the prosecution.
The prosecution, filing its Comment/Opposition on 26 May 2004, submitted a Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits on 24 January 2004.
On 8 June 2004, Atty. Docena issued an Order denying the Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss and admitting the late-submitted exhibits.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by Capt. Roquero was denied on 9 November 2004.

Capt. Roquero filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the ADT’s denial of his dismissal motion.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated 22 March 2007 and Resolution dated 1 February 2008, denied the petition and TRO, holding that the failure to file a formal offer amounted only to a waiver.
The core controversy on appeal centered on whether the almost five-year delay in resolving Capt. Roquero’s motion violated his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.

Whether the Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) abused its discretion by:

Failing to resolve or rule on Capt. Roquero’s 22 October 1999 motion to declare that Imelda Abutal had waived her right to submit her Formal Offer of Exhibit.
Admitting the formal offer of evidence filed by the prosecution almost five years later, despite the lapse in time.

Whether such delays and the subsequent procedural actions by the ADT infringed upon Capt. Roquero’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.

The issue involves assessing if the delay was so unjustifiable that it amounted to a violation of the constitutional guarantee under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Evaluating the balancing test factors for a speedy disposition, including the length of delay, reasons for delay, assertion or failure to assert the right, and the prejudice caused thereby.

Whether the failure of the prosecution to timely file its Formal Offer of Evidence should have resulted in the dismissal of the administrative case against Capt. Roquero.

Assessing the implications of Section 27 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service that considers such failure a mere waiver and not an automatic dismissal of the case.
Determining if the ADT’s discretion to admit late evidence was appropriate under the rules governing administrative cases.