G.R. No. 186502 - Saunar vs. Ermita

Carlos R. Saunar joined the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) as an agent in 1988 and rose to become Chief of its Anti-Graft Division.
As Chief, he conducted the official probe into alleged corruption involving tobacco excise taxes and then-President Estrada, former Governor Singson, and former Senator Jinggoy Estrada.

By Special Order No. 4003 dated 27 August 2004, Saunar was reassigned as Regional Director of Western Mindanao (Zamboanga City).
He received a Sandiganbayan subpoena to testify in the Estrada plunder case, obtained approval from his superior, and appeared on several dates (last on 27 October 2004).

On 29 October 2004, NBI Director Wycoco issued Special Order No. 005033 relieving Saunar as Regional Director and ordering him to report to the Deputy Director for Regional Operation Services (DDROS). He reported in early November 2004 but was given no specific duties and told to stay available.
From 24 March 2005, Saunar did not report for work, asserting lack of assignment, though he stayed near NBI offices and complied with court summonses.

On 6 October 2006, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) issued a formal charge based on Wycoco’s 19 August 2005 letter recommending action for four months’ unauthorized absence.
On 23 October 2006, Saunar was reassigned as Regional Director of the NBI Bicol Office.
The Office of the President (OP) decision dated 19 January 2007 found him guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and violation of Section 3(e), RA 3019, for being AWOL over a year, dismissing him with forfeiture of benefits. Reconsideration was denied on 12 June 2007.
On 20 October 2008, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 100157 affirmed the OP decision, upholding due process and the findings. Reconsideration was denied on 17 February 2009.
Saunar filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner was not denied due process and that his constitutional right to security of tenure was not violated.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in upholding findings that petitioner committed gross neglect of duty, abandoned his post, and was AWOL from March 24, 2005 to May 2006.