Republic of the Philippines

_______________
Pasig City

_____________

_____________ COMPLAINT
___________

- Versus –

Dr. _________________________ Adm. Case No. _______________

Former _____________
_____________________
(Now _________________
______________________ ,
________________________)
For: Grave Misconduct (2 counts)
Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct
Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of the Service.

x---------------------------------------------------------x

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The __________________, by and through the undersigned counsel, and

unto this most Honorable Formal Investigation Committee, hereby submits
states that:

1. Respondent, through their Manifestation and urgent Omnibus Motion

dated October 23, 2017, prayed for the dismissal of the case;
2. A clarification should be made with respect to both the concept of
jurisdiction and venue;
3. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Jurisdiction treats of the power of the
court to decide a case on the merits; while venue deals on the locality,
the place where the suit may be had.1”
4. Section 1 of ________________ is the pertinent provision that deals with
jurisdiction and should not be confused with venue. Section 1 of the said
order provides that the Secretary shall have original jurisdiction over
superintendents.
5. In this regard, Section 6 of the same order expressly provides that the
Secretary of __________ can take cognizance of any complaint or
administrative case filed before any office of the _____________;
6. Contrary to the averments of the Respondent, Section 21 of the said
Order does not provide any substantial requirements on venue. Section
21 merely establishes the composition of the formal investigation
committee and does not require that the members of the formal
investigation committee should be from the Region where the
Respondent is currently designated as ______________________;

1
67 C.J. 12., as further cited in the case of Dacoycoy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 74854,
April 2, 1991
 7. Furthermore, In Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan,2 no less than the Supreme
Court stated that,

The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy

disposition of the case against him was designed to prevent
the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal
prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and
to prevent delays in the administration of justice by
mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch
in the trial of criminal cases. Such right to a speedy trial
and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only when the
proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays. The inquiry as to whether or not an
accused has been denied such right is not susceptible by
precise qualification. The concept of a speedy disposition is
a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.

While justice is administered with dispatch, the essential

ingredient is orderly, expeditious and not mere speed. It
cannot be definitely said how long is too long in a system
where justice is supposed to be swift, but deliberate. It is
consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It
secures rights to the accused, but it does not preclude the
rights of public justice. Also, it must be borne in mind that
the rights given to the accused by the Constitution and the
Rules of Court are shields, not weapons; hence, courts are
to give meaning to that intent.

8. The charges against the Respondents, Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect

of Duty, and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service constitute grave offenses;

9. In this regard, In Office of the Ombudsman v. De Sahagun,[35] the

Court, speaking through Justice Austria-Martinez, held:

[W]ell-entrenched is the rule that administrative offenses do

not prescribe [Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr., A.M. No.
P-99-1342, September 20, 2005, 470 SCRA 218; Melchor v.
Gironella, G.R. No. 151138, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA
476; Heck v. Judge Santos, 467 Phil. 798, 824 (2004);
2
G.R. No. 162214, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRA 294, 312-313.
 Floria v. Sunga, 420 Phil. 637, 648-649 (2001)].
Administrative offenses by their very nature pertain to the
character of public officers and employees. In disciplining
public officers and employees, the object sought is not the
punishment of the officer or employee but the improvement
of the public service and the preservation of the publics
faith and confidence in our government [Melchor v.
Gironella, G.R. No. 151138, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA
476, 481; Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, 414 Phil.
590, 601 (2001)].

10. The matters as raised by the Respondent are best settled by the
Honorable Formal Investigation Committee during the course of the
Formal Investigation;

11. Given the gravity of the offenses as alleged, the Formal

Investigation Committee should exercise due diligence and careful study
of any and all evidence to be submitted by the parties thereto;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Committee that:

1. The motion to dismiss the complaint be denied;

2. The period for the investigation be extended in consideration of the
gravity of the offenses involved therein.

All other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Done in the City of _____ this ____ of November 20___.

Atty. ________________
Prosecutor

Copy Furnished:

Atty. _______________
Counsel for Respondents
Unit

NOTICE OF HEARING

Through

Atty. __________
Greetings:

Kindly submit forthwith the foregoing Opposition to the Motion to

Dismiss for the kind consideration and approval of the Honorable
Committee.

Atty. ______________
_________

Explanation of Service

A copy of this pleading has been served on the Respondent and the
Honorable Committee Chairman through mail due to time and distance
constaints and the lack of personnel who can undertake personal service
thereof.

Atty. __________________
Prosecutor