Case Summary (G.R. No. 120223)
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution
Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)
Administrative Order No. 7 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman)
Factual Background
Private respondents, as students of AIMSFI, sought Dr. Alba’s intervention to resolve a dispute with their school regarding certain policies. Dr. Alba scheduled a meeting with the students on March 20, 1994, at the DECS Office in Davao City. However, instead of meeting with the students, Dr. Alba met first with the Arriesgado spouses, owners of the school, who had no prior appointment with him. The students were left waiting for hours. This action prompted the Deputy Ombudsman, Cesar Nitorreda, to admonish Dr. Alba for failing to confer with both parties simultaneously to hear both sides. Subsequently, Dr. Alba presided over a conference between the students and the schoolowners.
Allegations of Bias and Discrimination
Despite Dr. Alba’s report claiming an amicable settlement, the private respondents’ affidavit stated that they were barred from taking their final examinations and participating in graduation rites as a consequence of the dispute. The affidavit further alleged that Dr. Alba exhibited bias in favor of the school owners. Dr. Alba denied these charges, defending his actions as efforts to gather a full picture before steps towards joint discussion. He justified the barring of students from exams as due to academic failure or unsettled financial obligations. Later, he alleged that the school conditioned students’ examination and graduation on withdrawing complaints against him to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Administrative Proceedings and Findings
Following the parties’ failure to attend a preliminary conference called by the Graft Investigating Officer, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution on April 28, 1995, finding Dr. Alba guilty of violating Sections 4(b), (c), and (e) of RA 6713, namely professionalism, justness and sincerity, and responsiveness to the public. The Office held that Dr. Alba showed partiality toward the school owners, acted against the interests of the complaining students, and that both he and the school coerced the students unlawfully. The penalty imposed was a 30-day suspension without pay, with a warning of stricter penalties for further infractions.
Petition and Initial Dismissal
Dr. Alba filed a petition for certiorari challenging the suspension, which was dismissed by the Court as moot and academic on June 27, 1995, due to an erroneous understanding that the suspension had already expired. The petitioner contested the dismissal, asserting that the petition was actually filed on June 2, 1995, during the effective suspension period.
Court's Rectification and Issue Framing
Upon review, the Court acknowledged the earlier mistake and set aside the dismissal for mootness. The Court then considered two main issues:
(a) The constitutionality of Section 27 of RA 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, which deprive the suspended official of the right to appeal decisions imposing suspension of not more than one month.
(b) Whether the 30-day suspension imposed on Dr. Alba complied with due process, was supported by substantial evidence, and was free from arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority by the Deputy Ombudsman.
Right to Appeal and Due Process Analysis
The Court reaffirmed that the right to appeal is statutory and not a constitutional due process requirement. Due process essentially requires an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. Reviewing the procedural rules of the Ombudsman’s Office, the Court found sufficient compliance with due process standards. These rules include furnishing copies of affidavits and evidence, allowing counter-affidavits, preliminary conferences to explore formal or summary investigation, and opportunities for submission of evidence with assistance of counsel.
Failure to Appear at Preliminary Conference
Dr. Alba faulted the Graft Investigating Officer’s failure to schedule a second preliminary conference following both parties’ absence. The Court held that Dr. Alba was afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard but chose not to appear, and thus cannot fault the administrative officer. The administrative process employed pleading procedures as a substitute for oral hearings, which the Court held to be a valid mode of due process in administrative adjudication.
Availability of Judicial Remedies
The Court noted that the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court remains available against decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman alleged to be rendered with grave abuse of discretion or beyond jurisdiction. Thus, Dr. Alba is not without recourse despite the lack of appeal provisions for suspensions of less than one month.
Substantial Evidence and Quas
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 120223)
Background and Facts of the Case
- The case originated from an administrative complaint (OBM-MIN-ADM-94-059) filed at the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao by private respondents Jesiela Antiporta and Aida Salmeo against Dr. Ramon Y. Alba, in his official capacity as Director III of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS).
- Private respondents, along with other students, sought intervention from petitioner to settle disputes with Arriesgado Institute of Medical Sciences Foundation, Inc. (AIMSFI) regarding school policy implementation.
- Petitioner scheduled a meeting on March 20, 1994, at the DECS office in Davao City, which the students attended and was acknowledged by the DECS Administrative Officer.
- Contrary to expectations, petitioner met privately with the spouses-owners of AIMSFI instead of the students, leaving the latter waiting for several hours.
- The students subsequently contacted Deputy Ombudsman Cesar E. Nitorreda, who admonished petitioner for failing to meet both parties simultaneously to hear all sides.
- Later, petitioner presided over a conference between both parties and reported to the Ombudsman that the dispute was amicably settled.
- Private respondents disputed petitioner's claim via an affidavit-complaint, alleging bias, partiality, and that they were barred from exams and graduation due to the conflict.
- Petitioner denied these allegations, justifying his meeting sequence as necessary for understanding the full situation before joint conferencing and attributing the students’ barring to academic deficiencies or unsettled obligations.
- He later averred that AIMSFI conditioned the students' final exams and graduation on their withdrawal of the complaint filed against him at the Ombudsman.
Resolution by the Office of the Ombudsman
- Following the parties’ non-attendance at a preliminary conference, the Ombudsman, on April 28, 1995, found petitioner guilty of violating Sections 4(b), (c), and (e) of R.A. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
- The resolution condemned petitioner for evident partiality favoring AIMSFI owners, joint coercion to compel students’ complaint withdrawal, and failure to act with professionalism, justness, sincerity, and responsiveness.
- Petitioner was suspended for thirty (30) days without pay and warned of harsher penalties for future violations.
Petition to the Supreme Court and Procedural History
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied; he then filed a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition with a prayer for temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court.
- The Court initially dismissed the petition as moot and academic since the suspension period had expired at the time of filing.
- Petitioner contested the Court's understanding of the petition's filing date, proving it was actually filed on June 2, 1995, thus during the effective suspension period.
- The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and agreed to resolve the petition on the merits.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- (a) Constitutionality of Section 27 of R.A. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), which bars appeal for penalties of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month, and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, regarding finality of decisions imposing