Case Summary (G.R. No. 167071)
Procedural History
Complaint filed May 15, 1996, at DOH-NCR alleging an anomalous procurement of medicines. Resident Ombudsman’s investigation recommended formal administrative charges on August 6, 1996. Secretary of Health filed formal charges on August 8, 1996. AO 298 (October 25, 1996) created an ad hoc committee to investigate the DOH-NCR administrative cases; the PCAGC took over the investigation on December 2, 1996. PCAGC issued a resolution (January 23, 1998) finding respondents guilty and recommending dismissal. President Ramos dismissed Dr. Majarais by AO 390 (April 20, 1998) and remanded the records regarding the other respondents to the Secretary of Health for appropriate action. Secretary Reodica issued orders dismissing Camposano, Agustin, and Perez (May 8, 1998; denial of reconsideration June 5, 1998). Respondents appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and thereafter to the Court of Appeals (CA); the CA set aside the CSC resolutions and ordered reinstatement, which led to the present petition for review to the Supreme Court.
Factual Allegations
The principal factual allegation concerns the DOH-NCR purchase on May 13, 1996 of 1,500 bottles of Ferrous Sulfate 250 mg. with Vitamin B Complex and Folic Acid, valued at P330,000.00, from Lumar Pharmaceutical Laboratory, purportedly procured without required public bidding. The Resident Ombudsman’s report, PCAGC resolution, and DOH Secretary’s orders flow from investigation and findings regarding that transaction and related administrative charges of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and violations of RA 3019.
Issues Presented
- Whether the PCAGC had jurisdiction to investigate the administrative complaints against respondents.
- Whether the Secretary of Health improperly relinquished adjudicatory authority by merely adopting the PCAGC’s findings and recommendations without an independent assessment, thereby violating administrative due process.
- Whether the Secretary’s dismissal orders were valid in light of the investigative process and the alleged exhaustiveness of the PCAGC inquiry.
Court’s Holding — Overview
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition: it sustained the validity of the Ad Hoc Investigating Committee created under AO 298 (thereby upholding the legality of the investigation), but annulled and set aside the Secretary of Health’s May 8, 1998 and June 5, 1998 orders dismissing the respondents for being violative of administrative due process. The records were remanded to the DOH for correction of the due-process defects.
Jurisdictional Analysis of PCAGC and AO 298
The Court analyzed Executive Order No. 151 (EO 151), which, by its terms, confers jurisdiction on the PCAGC to investigate administrative complaints “against presidential appointees.” EO 151’s text and preamble were read to limit the Commission’s investigative jurisdiction to presidential appointees (and, as amplified later by other executive instruments, certain high-ranking positions). However, the investigation of respondents was not undertaken pursuant strictly to EO 151 but pursuant to AO 298, which created an Ad Hoc Investigating Committee composed of the PCAGC members and directed adherence to Civil Service procedures (PD 807, Sections 38–40) and required forwarding findings and recommendations to the disciplining authority for action. The Court found that the President has constitutional authority over the Executive Department and the power to create an ad hoc committee to investigate officials and employees under the Executive Department. Consequently, AO 298 provided a lawful basis for the investigation despite the initial textual limits of EO 151. The Court further noted subsequent executive measures (e.g., Executive Order No. 12 and the PAGC) that addressed jurisdictional gaps in EO 151 with respect to non-presidential appointees, but held that AO 298 itself sufficed to validate the investigative mandate in this case.
Administrative Due Process Principles Articulated
The Court reiterated cardinal due process requirements for administrative disciplinary proceedings: (1) right to a hearing including opportunity to present evidence; (2) tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) decision must have some basis; (4) existence of substantial evidence; (5) decision should be premised on evidence in the record and disclosed to parties; (6) the disciplining authority must act on its own consideration of the law and facts and not blindly adopt a subordinate’s views; and (7) the decision must disclose reasons so respondents can prepare an intelligent appeal. These principles derive from long-standing administrative and constitutional jurisprudence and the Administrative Code (EO 292), as applied under the 1987 Constitution’s allocation of executive powers and disciplinary prerogatives.
Application of Due Process to Secretary’s Orders
Although a department secretary may legitimately delegate investigatory tasks to subordinates or other bodies (and the delegation to an investigating committee or the PCAGC was permissible), the Secretary of Health retained the adjudicatory power and the duty to independently assess evidence and apply governing law before imposing disciplinary sanctions. The Secretary’s two-page dismissal order was criticized for failing to demonstrate independent consideration of facts and law, for relying mechanically and exclusively on the dispositive portion of the PCAGC resolution, and for even misquoting that resolution by omitting references to two respondents. The Secretary’s denial of the motion for reconsideration did not cure these defects. By contrast, the Court observed that the President’s separate, more elaborate decision concerning Dr. Majarais reflected an independent re-study and articulation of findings and legal analysis — an approach the Secretary should have emulated. Mere delegation of investigation cannot substitute for the disciplining authority’s obligation to personally weigh evidence and state reasons for its decision.
Precedential and Doctrinal Support
The Court relied on precedent that permits delegation of investigatory functions but requires that the disciplining authority render the final adjudication on the merits based on its own consideration (e.g., American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents as cited). The Supreme Court also referenced
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 167071)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed with the Supreme Court assailing the March 19, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 67720.
- The Court of Appeals had granted relief (set aside the assailed Resolutions of the Civil Service Commission and ordered reinstatement with back salaries and preservation of seniority rights).
- The Supreme Court took the case for resolution; the petition was ultimately deemed partly meritorious and the Supreme Court issued its decision authored by Justice Panganiban.
- The Supreme Court’s disposition: Petition partly granted; the authority of the Ad Hoc Investigating Committee created under Administrative Order No. 298 was sustained; the May 8, 1998 and June 5, 1998 Orders of the Secretary of Health were annulled and set aside; records remanded to the Department of Health for correction of due-process errors; no pronouncement as to costs.
- Several related procedural episodes in the administrative and appellate system are integral to the posture: separate appeals and timing differences (notably Horacio Cabrera’s separate appeal and CA decision of October 15, 2001) affected the CA’s reasoning and chronology.
Facts
- Respondents were former employees of the Department of Health — National Capital Region (DOH-NCR):
- Priscilla G. Camposano — Finance and Management Officer II;
- Imelda Q. Agustin — Accountant I;
- Enrique L. Perez — Acting Supply Officer III.
- A complaint was filed by concerned DOH-NCR employees on May 15, 1996 regarding an alleged anomalous purchase by DOH-NCR of 1,500 bottles of Ferrous Sulfate 250 mg. with Vitamin B Complex and Folic Acid capsules worth P330,000.00 from Lumar Pharmaceutical Laboratory on May 13, 1996.
- The DOH Resident Ombudsman submitted an investigation report on August 6, 1996 recommending formal administrative charges of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct against respondents and co-respondents.
- On August 8, 1996 the Secretary of Health filed formal charges against respondents and co-respondents for Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Violation of RA 3019.
Administrative Investigations and Official Acts (Chronology)
- October 25, 1996: Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres issued Administrative Order No. 298 (AO 298) creating an ad-hoc committee to investigate administrative cases against NCR Health Director Rosalinda U. Majarais and other DOH-NCR officers and employees. AO 298: (a) composed the Ad Hoc Investigating Committee; (b) directed adherence to procedures under Sections 38–40 of PD 807 (Civil Service Law); (c) tasked the committee to forward entire records with findings, recommendations, and draft decision to the disciplining authority and to the President for approval.
- October 26, 1996: AO 298 was endorsed to the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC).
- December 2, 1996: PCAGC took over the investigation from the DOH.
- January 23, 1998: PCAGC issued a resolution finding Majarais, Camposano, Cabrera, Agustin, and Perez guilty as charged and recommended to President Fidel V. Ramos the penalty of dismissal from the government service for those respondents.
- April 20, 1998: President Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 390 (AO 390): Dr. Rosalinda U. Majarais was found guilty and dismissed; the records regarding the other respondents were remanded to Secretary Carmencita N. Reodica, Department of Health, for appropriate action.
- May 8, 1998: Secretary of Health Carmencita N. Reodica issued an Order dismissing respondents Camposano, Cabrera, Agustin, and Perez from the service (dispositive portion followed PCAGC resolution).
- May 28, 1998: Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration before the Secretary of Health.
- June 5, 1998: Secretary Reodica denied the motion for reconsideration.
- June 29 and July 17, 1998: Respondents filed Notice of Appeal and appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC); the CSC denied their appeal on May 21, 1999 and denied their motion for reconsideration on September 30, 1999; respondents received the denial in November 2001.
- Horacio Cabrera filed a separate appeal; the CA granted his petition on October 15, 2001, exonerating him and ordering reinstatement and back pay. The CA’s reasoning in Cabrera’s case influenced the CA’s treatment of respondents’ own appeal.
Issues Presented (as raised by Petitioner, Department of Health)
- I. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the PCAGC did not have jurisdiction to investigate the anomalous transaction involving respondents.
- II. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Secretary of Health had relinquished the authority to investigate and decide, and that the Secretary merely performed a mechanical act in ordering respondents’ dismissal.
- III. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ignoring that an exhaustive investigation was conducted by PCAGC which resulted in a finding that the anomalous contract (purchase without required public bidding) was patently illegal.
- The Supreme Court treated the second and third issues together because they were necessarily intertwined.
Court of Appeals Ruling (as summarized)
- The CA annulled the CSC’s resolutions against respondents and ordered reinstatement and back salaries, based on reasoning that:
- PCAGC’s jurisdiction pertains only to presidential appointees and therefore PCAGC had no power to investigate respondents (who were non-presidential appointees).
- The Secretary of Health improperly relied simply and completely on PCAGC’s findings; the Secretary failed to comply with required administrative due process (an independent assessment of facts and law before imposing sanctions).
- The CA used the legal bases from Cabrera’s separate successful appeal in reaching its judgment for respondents though the CA decision under review did not discuss Cabrera’s separate appeal in detail.
Supreme Court — First Issue: Jurisdiction to Investigate (EO 151 and AO 298)
- Executive Order No. 151 (dated January 11, 1994) created the PCAGC and on its face and by textual construction (verba legis) authorized PCAGC to investigate only presidential appointees.
- EO 151’s Preamble and Section 3 articulate jurisdiction “over all administrative complaints involving graft and corruption filed in any form or manner against presidential appointees.”
- Section 4(a) explicitly describes the Commission’s power to investigate administrative complaints against presidential appointees and lists criteria for cases appropriate for the Commission (including presidential appointees of rank equivalent to or higher than Assistant Regional Director; amount involved at least P10,000,000.00; threats of grievous harm to national interest; and matters assigned by the