Title
Ebdane, Jr. vs. Apurillo
Case
G.R. No. 204172
Decision Date
Dec 9, 2015
DPWH officials challenged preventive suspension over bidding irregularities; SC ruled due process upheld as respondents waived formal hearing, remanding case for continuation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204172)

Applicable Law

This case is governed by the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly regarding administrative due process as mandated under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS).

Background Facts

The case originated when an anonymous complaint was received by the DPWH alleging that R.M. Padillo Builders (RMPB) won a bidding for the Lirang Revetment Project despite not being a registered contractor. Following the complaint, a series of investigative actions were initiated by the DPWH, including the issuance of subpoenas and an investigation report recommending administrative charges against the involved officials for Gross Misconduct due to their failure to follow proper bidding protocols.

Proceedings

On December 22, 2005, Acting Secretary Ebdane issued a Formal Charge against the respondents, initiating preventive suspension and requiring their answers to the charges. The respondents filed their answers, arguing lack of basis for the charges and eventually sought judicial relief by filing a petition for certiorari due to alleged violations of their due process rights. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the respondents by setting aside the Formal Charge, stating their right to due process was violated, which was later upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Issue Presented

The central issue of this case revolves around whether the due process rights of the respondents were violated during the administrative proceedings initiated against them.

Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court found in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing that the essence of procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. It resolved that although certain procedural missteps occurred, particularly the lack of a preliminary investigation and the failure to seek comments on the anonymous complaint, these were remedied by the opportunity given to the respondents to present their answers and evidence.

The Court determined that the respondents had indeed chosen to waive their right to a formal hearing and instead opted for their case to be decided based

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.