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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 186502)

Petitioner

Carlos R. Saunar

Respondents

Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita
Constance P. De Guzman, Chairperson of the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC)

Key Dates

• August 27, 2004 – Saunar reassigned to Western Mindanao (Zamboanga City)
• October 27, 2004 – Last appearance before the Sandiganbayan
• March 24, 2005 – Alleged start of unauthorized absence
• October 6, 2006 – PAGC issues formal charge
• January 19, 2007 – Office of the President (OP) dismisses Saunar
• October 20, 2008 – Court of Appeals (CA) affirms dismissal
• February 17, 2009 – CA denies reconsideration
• December 13, 2017 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 1 (due process)
• Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code), Book V, Rule XIV, Section 22(b)
• Republic Act No. 6713, Section 4(a) (Code of Conduct for Public Officials)
• Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e) (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

The Facts

Saunar joined the NBI in 1988 and rose to Chief of the Anti-Graft Division. He investigated alleged tobacco excise tax corruption implicating Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson and President Estrada. After testifying before the Sandiganbayan in October 2004, NBI Director Wycoco ordered him to report to the Deputy Director for Regional Operation Services (DDROS). Saunar complied but was given no specific duties, remaining available for assignment and attending court hearings as required. The PAGC later charged him with failure to report for work from March 24, 2005 to May 2006 without approved leave.

The OP Decision

The OP found Saunar guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty under EO 292, Rule XIV, Section 22(b) in relation to RA 6713 and of violating RA 3019, Section 3(e). It held that his absence—despite direction to report to DDROS—constituted a breach of duty, warranting dismissal, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification for re-employment. His accounting for government property absolved him of related charges.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the OP decision in toto. It concluded that due process was observed through notice and opportunity to submit defenses, that formal hearings are not mandatory in administrative proceedings, and that Saunar’s prolonged AWOL justified findings of Gross Neglect of Duty and prejudice to public interest under RA 3019, Section 3(e).

Issues on Appeal

I. Whether due process and security of tenure under the Constitution were violated by the absence of a formal hearing and delayed notice.
II. Whether factual and legal findings on Gross Neglect of Duty and AWOL from March 2005 to May 2006 were supported by substantial evidence.

Administrative Due Process Revisited

Under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner. Philippine jurisprudence—from Ang Tibay to subsequent decisions—recognizes administrative due process as flexible but mandates that parties be allowed to present evidence, confront adverse witnesses, and receive tribunal consideration of such evidence. The PAGC rules grant discretionary authority to conduct clarificatory hearings, subject to notification, attendance rights, and submission of clarificatory questions. Here, Saunar was not informed of hearings, deprived of the chance to propound questions, and prevented from confronting witnesses, violating fairness and PAGC’s own procedural rules. The lack of formal hearing cannot be excused, as Saunar did not waive the right and the rules contemplated its conduct.

Gross Neglect of Duty Negated by Intent

Gross Neglect of Duty entails an intentional or willful disregard of responsibilities. Although Saunar remained unassigned after reporting to DDROS, he complied with all special orders to attend court and accepted his later reassignment to Bicol. His availability and obedience to lawful orders negate any conscious indifference. Consequently, the element of willful neglect is absent, and the prolonged absence—without proof of intent to abandon duty—fails to support a finding of gross neglect.

Non-Application of RA 3019, Section 3(e)

Liability under RA 3019, Section 3(e) requires manifest pa

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 186502)

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking to reverse the 20 October 2008 Decision and 17 February 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100157.
The Court of Appeals had affirmed the 19 January 2007 Decision of the Office of the President (OP), dismissing petitioner from government service.
The OP decision and CA resolution denied petitioner’s motions for reconsideration, prompting further appeal to the Supreme Court.

Factual Background

Carlos R. Saunar joined the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) as an agent in 1988, rising to Chief of the Anti-Graft Division and then Regional Director.
As Chief of the Anti-Graft Division, he investigated alleged corruption on tobacco excise taxes involving Governor Singson, President Estrada, and Senator Jinggoy Estrada.
On 27 August 2004, Special Order No. 4003 reassigned him as Regional Director of Western Mindanao (Zamboanga City).
He received a subpoena ad testificandum from the Sandiganbayan, secured supervisory approval, and testified on several dates until 27 October 2004.
On 29 October 2004, NBI Director Wycoco issued Special Order No. 005033 relieving him of regional duties and ordering him to report to Deputy Director Bautista for further instructions.
From November 2004 onward, he was not given specific duties, told to stay “available” and remained near NBI premises, attending court hearings when served with special orders.
On 3 October 2006, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) formally charged him based on NBI Director Wycoco’s 19 August 2005 letter alleging he had been absent without leave from 24 March 2005 for four months.
On 23 October 2006, he was reassigned as Regional Director of the NBI Bicol Office.
On 19 January 2007, the OP dismissed him for gross neglect of duty and violation of RA 3019 §3(e); his motion for reconsideration was denied on 12 June 2007.
The CA denied his appeal on 20 October 2008 and his motion for reconsideration on 17 February 2009.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner was not deprived of due process and that his 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 by