AUTENCIO v.

MANARA
January 19, 2005 | Panganiban, J. | Certiorari | Cardinal Primary Rights
SUMMARY: Autencio was found guilty of misconduct in office for allowing
irregularities to happen which led to the illegal payment of salaries to casuals and
was penalized with forced resignation with forfeiture of retirement benefits except
for accumulated earned leaves (payroll of 7 casual employees were altered, making it
appear as if they rendered services for the whole month of Sept 1996, when, in fact,
they only rendered 5 days of service). CSC modified the decision to grave
misconduct, imposing a penalty of dismissal for cause with all its accessories. In her
MR, she alleged that she was misled into waiving her right to present evidence at a
formal hearing by respondent, believing that by agreeing to submit the case for
resolution, she would only be held liable for simple negligence. The CSC denied, as
well as the CA. Petitioner appended a Manifestation of the incumbent Mayor of
Cotabato City (not the mayor when the investigation was conducted), stating that
petitioner was misled into waiving her right to a formal hearing. SC held that
petitioner was not deprived of substantial due process.
DOCTRINE: In administrative cases, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain
ones side suffices to meet the requirements of due process; Where the party has the
opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of,
defects in procedural due process may be cured.
FACTS:
1. City Administrator Rodel Maara filed a complaint before the Office of the City
Mayor against Inocelia Autencio for dishonesty and misconduct in office,
alleging that upon the latters order, Riza Bravo, an employee of the City
Assessors Office charged with the preparation of the payroll of casual
employees, changed the Sept 1996 payroll by making it appear as if 7 casual
employees worked for the whole month, when in fact, they rendered services
only for 5 days.
2. Upon Autencios instruction, Bravo personally collected the salaries of the 7
casual employees and distributed to them only of their salaries, while the
remainder was given to Autencio (She told them that the other half would be
deducted as their contributions for the Christmas party).
3. She was preventively suspended for 90 days, pending investigation. After
hearing, the Office for Legal Services issued a resolution declaring petitioner
guilty of misconduct in office for allowing irregularities to happen which led to
the illegal payment of salaries to casuals. A penalty of forced resignation with
forfeiture of retirement benefits except for earned leave accumulated before the
filing of the complaint was imposed.
4. She appealed to the CSC which modified the decision to grave misconduct and
imposed a penalty of dismissal for cause with all its accessories. In her MR, she
alleged that she waived her right to present her evidence at a formal hearing and
agreed to submit the case for resolution, only because of the manifestation of
the complainant and the hearing officer that she could be held liable only for the
lesser offense of simple negligence. MR denied.

5.

CA affirmed CSC Resolutions. Petitioner filed another MR, appending thereto

the incumbent Mayor of Cotabato City, Datu Muslimin Semas Manifestation
stating that petitioner was misled into waiving her right to a formal hearing, and
that he did not object to the reopening of the case. CA denied MR.

ISSUE/S: WoN petitioner was deprived of substantial due process NO.

HELD/RULING: DENIED.
RATIO:
1. In administrative cases, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain ones side
suffices to meet the requirements of due process. A formal or trial-type hearing
is not always necessary. For the purpose of ascertaining the truth, an
investigation will be conducted, during which technical rules applicable to
judicial proceedings need not always be adhered to. And where the party has
the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured.
2. In the case at bar, petitioner had received sufficient information which, in fact,
enabled her to prepare her defense. She filed her Answer controverting the
charges against her and submitted Affidavits of personnel in the Assessors
Office to support her claim of innocence. A prehearing conference was
conducted by the legal officer, during which she assisted by her counsel had
participated. Finally, she was able to appeal the ruling of City Mayor Badoy to
the CSC, and then to the CA
3. Re: Manifestation: Manifestation is insufficient to overturn the principle that
government officials are presumed to have performed regularly their functions:
it contained mere conclusions, not statements of fact. It is the court, not the
witness or the parties, who has the duty of drawing legal conclusions from the
evidence presented. Moreover, the author of the Manifestation was not the city
mayor at the time the investigation was conducted. Fraud is never presumed. It
must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Apart from the
Manifestation, there is no clear evidence of fraud.
4. Furthermore, the issue of respondents misrepresentation was not raised in her
original appeal. She only questioned the harshness of the penalty imposed.
Failure to invoke a defense within the prescribed period constitutes a waiver
thereof. Also, petitioners counsel, by allegedly relying on respondents
statement that she could be held liable only for the lesser offense of simple
negligence was a risk he took on her behalf. Mistakes of the counsel as to
argumentation, the relevancy or irrelevancy of a certain evidence or the
introduction thereof are, among others, all mistakes of procedure that bind the
client.
5. Complaints against public officers and employees relating or incidental to, or in
the performance of their duties are necessarily impressed with public interest.
The need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government
demands that the proceedings in administrative cases should not be made to
depend on the whims and caprices of complainants. Otherwise, the disciplining
authorities and the courts would be stripped of their prerogative.