You are on page 1of 4

Lorna Medina v Commission on Audit (COA) represented by the Audit Team of Eufrocinia

Mawak, Susan Pallerna and Ma Dolores Tepora

Date: Feb 4 2008

Ponente: J. Tinga

 This petition originated from the audit conducted by COA on the cash and
accounts handled by Medina (P) in her capacity as municipal treasurer of General
Mariano Cavite.
 In the joint affidavit of audit team head, Mawak and her team, Pallerna, Tepora
and certain Alvaraz who were all state auditors of the Provincial Auditor’s Office of
o Found out that there was a cash shortage of 4,080,631.36 pesos from Aug
1999 to Sept 2000
o Sent a demand letter to immediately restitute within 72 hours but allegedly
failed to comply
o State auditors submitted report to Provincial Auditor’s office and
recommended the relief of Medina from her post as municipal treasurer and
file criminal charges
 COA represented by the state auditors (ones above) filed an admin case before
the Deputy Ombudmsman of Luzon charging Medina for grave misconduct and
 Medina filed a counter affidavit and position paper raising the ff: defenses
o Audit team not independent
o Computation was erroneous
o Audit team failed to verify documents
o Documents of audit report were not signed
o Cash shortage was due to previous audit and should be excluded on the
total shortage
o Audit team erroneously credited accounts to another cashier
 Deputy Ombudsman Fernandez approved the recommendation of the graft
investigation and prosecution officer to dismiss Medina from service based on
existence of substantial evidence of discrepancy and failure to file a counter
affidavit and position paper despite due notice
 Medina filed an urgent motion that she complied with counter affidavit and
position paper and praying it be reconsidered
 Deputy Omb Fernandez denied as even if there was an error in the decision stating
for failure to submit position paper, theser are not exculpatory arguments that
would negate the discrepancy of accounts
o Failure to produce shortage amount despite demand created a presumption
that it was used for personal use
 Medina filed for reconsideration on grounds of newly discovered evidence and
requested for a formal investigation
 Deputy Omb denied the formal investigation as it she was already given due
process when she filed her counter affidavit and position paper
 Medina elevated to CA questioning her denial of request for formal investigation
 CA denied

Issue: WON CA failed to order a formal reinvestigation

 Medina insists that she is entitled to formal investigation citing Admin Code of 1987
Book V Title I Subtitle A section 48 (2) and (3)1
 COA through OSG relies on Admin Order no 7 as amended by Admin Order 17 Rule
III sec 5 governing the procedure in admin cases before the Office of the Omb that
the propriety of conducting formal investigation rests on the sound discretion of the
hearing officer
 Medina argues that the admin code is superior than the admin order. Thus, she is
entitled to a formal investigation if she so desires
 SC: Medina’s theory is erroneous
o Admin order no 7, as amended by admin order no 17, particularly governs
the proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman.
o The rules of procedure of the office of the ombudsman was issued pursuant
to the authority vested in the office of the ombudsman under RA 6770
o When an admin agency promulgates rules and regulations, it “makes” a new
law with force and effect of a valid law
o Rules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or
authority conferred upon the admin agency by law, partake of the nature of
a statute
o The Admin code cited by Medina applies only in admin cases before the Civil
Service Commission (CSC)
o On various occasions, the Court has ruled on the primacy of special laws and
of their implementing regulations over the admin code of 1987 in settling
controversies specifically subject of these special laws
 Hon Joson v Exec Sec Torres – Loc Gov rules and regulation govern
admin disciplinary proceedings against elective local officials and
admin cod of 1987 is only suppletory based on the principle of statutory
construction that where two statutes are applicable, that which is
specially intended for the said case must prevail
 Lapid v CA – Ombudsman rules prevail over Loc Gov rules on the issue
of the execution of the Ombudsman decision pending appeal
 As applied
o Between Admin code and Admin order no 7, the latter governs on admin
complaint filed before the office of the Omb
o Records show that Medina’s request of reinvestigation was a mere
afterthought and should have been requested at the first opportunity but
definitely before the rendition of a decision
o No denial of due process as Medina filed a counter-affidavit and position
papers with 2 motion for reconsideration
o The essence of due process in admin proceedings is the opportunity to
explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of
o As long as parties are given opportunity to be heard before judgement is
rendered = ok!
 Other issues:
o Decision was made on substantial evidence
o Penalty of dismissal cannot be mitigated that is was the first time or length of
service when it is a grave offense

SEC. 48. Procedure in Administrative Cases Against NonPresidential Appointees.—x x x (2) In the case of a
complaint filed by any other persons, the complainant shall submit sworn statements covering his testimony
and those of witnesses together with his documentary evidence. If on the basis of such papers a prima
facie case is found not to exist, the disciplining authority shall dismiss the case. If a prima facie case exists,
he shall notify the respondent in writing of the charges against the latter, to which shall be attached copies
of the complaint, sworn statements and other documents submitted, and the respondent shall be allowed
not less than seventy-two hours after receipt of the complaint to answer the charges in writing under oath,
together with supporting sworn statements and documents, in which he shall indicate whether or not he
elects a formal investigation if his answer is not considered satisfactory. If the answer is found satisfactory,
the disciplinary authority shall dismiss the case.

18 SEC. 48. Procedure in Administrative Cases Against NonPresidential Appointees.—x x x (3) Although a
respondent does not request a formal investigation, one shall nevertheless be conducted when from the
allegations of the complaint and the answer of the respondent, including the supporting documents, the
merits of the case cannot be decided judiciously without conducting such an investigation.

AO 7

SEC. 5. Administrative adjudication; How conducted.—a) If the complaint is docketed as an administrative

case, the respondent shall be furnished with a copy of the affidavits and other evidence submitted by the
complainant, and shall be ordered to file his counter-affidavit and other evidence in support of his defense,
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, together with proof of service of the same on the complainant
who may file his replyaffidavit within ten (10) days from receipt of the counter-affidavit of the respondent;

b) If the Hearing Officer finds no sufficient cause to warrant further proceedings on the basis of the affidavits
and other evidence submitted by the parties, the complaint may be dismissed. Otherwise, he shall issue an
Order (or Orders) for any of the following purposes:

1) To direct the parties to file, within ten (10) days from receipt of the Order, their respective position papers.
The position papers shall contain only those charges, defenses and other claims contained in the affidavits
and pleadings files by

the parties. Any additional relevant affidavits and/or documentary evidence may be attached by the
parties to their position papers. On the basis of the position papers, affidavits and other pleadings filed, the
Hearing Officer may consider the case submitted for resolution.

2) If the Hearing Officer decides not to consider the case submitted for resolution after the filing of position
papers, affidavits and pleadings, to conduct a clarificatory hearing regarding facts material to the case as
appearing in the respective position papers, affidavits and pleadings filed by the parties. At this stage, he
may, at his discretion and for the purpose of determining whether there is a need for a formal trial or
hearing, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or information;

In the conduct of clarificatory hearings, the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be present but
without the right to examine or cross-examine the party/witness being questioned. The parties may be
allowed to raise clarificatory questions and elicit answers from the opposing party/witness, which shall be
coursed through the Hearing Officer who shall determine whether or not proposed questions are necessary
and relevant. In such cases, the Hearing Officer shall ask the question in such manner and phrasing as he
may deem appropriate;
3) If the Hearing Officer finds no necessity for further proceedings on the basis of the clarificatory hearings,
affidavits, pleadings and position papers filed by the parties, he shall issue an Order declaring the case
submitted for resolution. The Hearing Officer may also require the parties to simultaneously submit, within ten
(10) days from receipt of the Order, their Reply Position Papers. The parties, if new affidavits and/or exhibits
are attached to the other party’s Position Paper, may submit only rebutting evidence with their Reply
Position Papers.

4) If the Hearing Officer finds the need to conduct a formal investigation on the basis of the clarificatory
hearings, affidavits, pleadings and position papers filed by the parties, an Order shall be issued for the
purpose. In the same Order, the parties shall be required to file within ten (10) days from the receipt of the
Order their respective pretrial briefs which shall contain, among others, the nature of the charge(s) and
defenses, proposed stipulation of facts, a definition of the issues, identification and marking of exhibits,
limitation of witnesses, and such other matters as would expedite the proceedings. The parties are allowed
to introduce matters in the pre-trial briefs which are not covered by the position papers, affidavits and
pleadings filed and served prior to the issuance of the Order directing the conduct of the formal

c) The conduct of formal proceedings by the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be
non-litigious in nature. Subject to the requirements of due process in administrative cases, the technicalities
of law, procedure and evidence shall not strictly apply thereto. The Hearing Officer may avail himself of all
reasonable means to ascertain speedily the facts of the case. He shall take full control of the proceedings,
with proper regard to the right of the parties to due process, and shall limit the presentation of evidence to
matters relevant to the issue(s) before him and necessary for a just and speedy disposition of the case.