G.R. No. 215118 - Mandagan vs. Jose M. Valero Corp.

A complaint-affidavit was filed on July 4, 1994, by Walter H. Beck, a U.S. citizen, at the Booth of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) in Manila.
The complaint alleged that petitioner Renato A. Tapiador, then BID Special Investigator and Technical Assistant, demanded and received P10,000 in exchange for issuing an Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR), and subsequently withheld the document unless an additional P7,000 was remitted.
Accompanying the complaint was an affidavit by Purisima C. Terencio, intended to corroborate that the Beck couple, including Beck's wife, paid the stipulated amount.

On July 11, 1994, petitioner Tapiador filed a counter-affidavit in which he categorically denied ever demanding or receiving any money in connection with the issuance of the ACR.
He further testified that on June 29, 1994, during a follow-up inquiry by Beck and his wife regarding his visa application, the couple verbally assaulted him and accused him of demanding money, prompting him to file a criminal complaint for oral defamation.
The incident was corroborated by Rosanna C. Vigo, a BID employee and colleague of the petitioner, through her affidavit dated July 15, 1994.

Following the complaint, BID Resident Ombudsman Ronaldo P. Ledesma conducted an investigation that included both the criminal and administrative aspects of the case.
While the criminal charge was later dismissed for lack of evidence, the administrative investigation found petitioner Tapiador liable for grave misconduct based on the alleged incident.
The Ombudsman, without the benefit of a preliminary hearing (dispensed upon the petitioner’s request), recommended filing criminal and administrative charges, ultimately opting for the administrative sanction of dismissal from government service.

After the administrative charges were imposed and the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on April 7, 1997, the petitioner elevated the matter by filing a petition for review.
The petition raised several assignments of error, notably that:

The Ombudsman’s finding of grave misconduct was not substantiated by sufficient evidence.
The resolution was rendered after an undue delay of almost three years, violating the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial.
The absence of a preliminary conference and actual hearing constituted a violation of due process.
The inconsistency regarding the dismissal of the criminal complaint pointed to a flawed evidentiary basis.
The imposition of dismissal was excessively harsh given the petitioner’s thirty-year service record.

The administrative case in the record relies heavily on the affidavits of Walter Beck and Purisima Terencio; however, both affidavits are fraught with inconsistencies and omissions.
Walter Beck’s affidavit neither clearly attributes the receipt of the P10,000 to the petitioner nor demonstrates first-hand knowledge of the alleged transaction, having relied on information reportedly received from Terencio.
Purisima Terencio’s affidavit, although asserting that the Beck couple paid P10,000 on February 23, 1992, does not clearly indicate personal observation or independent verification of the payment, rendering it susceptible to being deemed hearsay.
These inconsistencies significantly impeached Terencio’s credibility and undermined the evidentiary foundation for the administrative sanction imposed against the petitioner.

Subsequent to the Ombudsman’s resolution, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion In Lieu of Comment on February 20, 1998, advocating for the petitioner’s exoneration on grounds of procedural due process violations and insufficient evidence.
The Office of the Ombudsman was later directed to file its own comment, which it did on May 12, 1998, followed by the petitioner’s reply on August 14, 1998.
These pleadings and comments formed an integral part of the record submitted for decision, highlighting the contested nature of evidentiary issues and the procedural lapses in the administrative proceedings.

Whether the evidence presented, primarily the affidavits of Walter Beck and Purisima Terencio, was sufficient to sustain the administrative charge of grave misconduct against petitioner Tapiador.
Whether the administrative proceedings violated the petitioner’s constitutional rights, specifically his right to due process, by:

Not affording him a preliminary conference and actual hearing before the resolution was rendered.
Rendering the decision after an undue delay of nearly three years, thus compromising the right to a speedy trial.

Whether the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from government service was justified, particularly in context of the petitioner’s distinguished thirty-year service record and the absence of direct and conclusive evidence linking him to the alleged bribery.