ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

V. Administrative Due Process

CASES:

1. Fabella vs. CA, 282 SCRA 256

2. Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA 143
3. Alcala vs. School Principal Villar, 11/18/03
4. OMB vs. Estandarte, 521 SCRA 155
5. OMB vs. OIC Principal Medrano, 569 SCRA 749
6. OMB vs. Delijero, 634 SCRA 135
7. OMB vs. Masing, 542 SCRA 253
8. Garcia vs. Molina, 627 SCRA 541 *jenn notes
9. Zambales Mining vs. CA, 94 SCRA 261 The officer who reviews a case on appeal should not be the same
person whose decision is subject of review.
10. Cruz vs. CSC, 370 SCRA 650 The Commission shall have power to hear and decide administrative cases
instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and
actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it.
11. CSC vs. Albao, 472 SCRA 548 The Commission shall have power to hear and decide administrative cases
instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and
actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it.
12. Singson vs. NLRC, 274 SCRA 358 The officer who reviews a case on appeal should not be the same person
whose decision is subject of review.
13. Tejano vs. Desierto, 462 SCRA 568 The officer who reviews a case on appeal should not be the same person
whose decision is subject of review.
14. Rep. vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 319 Notice to the opposing party as to the motion of revival is not
required since the filing of the motion for the revival is not already a decision on the merits.
15. CSC vs. Lucas, 301 SCRA 560 Respondent must be duly informed of charge vs. him & he cannot be convicted of
a crime with w/c he was not charged.
16. Dr. Zenaida Pia vs. Margarito Gervacio, GR 172334, 6/5/13 designation of the offense with which a
person is charged in an administrative case is not controlling, and one may be found guilty of another offense where
the substance of the allegations and evidence presented sufficiently prove one’s guilt.
17. Avenido vs. CSC, 553 SCRA 711 It is sufficient that he is apprised of the charge; what is controlling is the
allegation of the acts complained of, not the designation of the offense.
18. Sec Pefianco v Moral, 322 SCRA 439 NOT entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any
investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against her. The report is an internal & confidential
communication between DECS Sec and Inv Comm. It is not an integral part of the decision.
19. LTO v Registration Sec. Chief Mercedita E. Gutierrez, July 3, 2017 Gutierrez was accorded to be heard
in a Show Cause Memo (her non-compliance w/ directive to relocate her equipment) before the LTO found prima
facie case against her, necessitating the issuance of the Formal Charge.
20. Anonymous Complaint v Otelia Lyn Maceda MTC Interpreter 720 SCRA 27 Hence there is no more
need to conduct another PI. Her consent was necessary for the release of copies thereof (DTR) attached to letter-
complaint.
21. Lacson vs. PAGC, 05/30/11 Petitioners actively participated in PAGC proceedings where they explained their
actions thru their memoranda. For failure to appeal to proper forum (to CSC & not to CA), PEA decision has become
final & executory.
22. Ruivivar vs. Omb., 565 SCRA 325 The respondent has been given the opportunity to present her side relative
thereto, however, she chose not to submit countervailing evidence or argument.
23. Gaoiran vs. Alcala & Castillejo, 444 SCRA 420 Unverified complaint filed with CHED is not the compliant
with the purview of EO 292. It merely commences Fact-finding investigation.
24. Concerned MWSS Officials vs. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502 In administrative proceedings, moreover,
technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied
25. UP Board of Regents vs. CA, 313 SCRA 404 In administrative proceedings, moreover, technical rules of
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. ***Please see no. 38.
26. NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 707 Service of summons or order on OSG is indispensable ingredient of due process.
Deputized special attorney has no legal authority to decide whether appeal should be made on the Resolution which
was adverse to NPC as he is a mere representative of the OSG.
27. Lincoln Gerard, Inc. vs. NLRC, 7/23/90 Notice to the counsel is notice to the client. Petitioner’s former
counsel did not withdraw its appearance. Negligence of its counsel does not constitute a denial of due process.
28. PPA vs. Sargasso Const., 435 SCRA 512 Notice to any one of the several counsels on record is notice to all
and such notice starts at the time running for appeal despite that the other counsel on record has not received a copy
of the decision.
29. Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753 Right to appeal is granted by law and thus, may be withdrawn by the law
itself.
30. Ampong vs. CSC, 563 SCRA 294 But while a party’s right to the assistance of counsel is sacred in proceedings
criminal in nature, there is no such requirement in administrative proceedings
31. DAR RD Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125 Right to counsel is not imperative because administrative
inquiry is conducted merely to determine whether the facts merit disciplinary measures against erring public
officers, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of the government service.
32. Maquilan vs. Maquilan, 524 SCRA 166 Negligence of counsel binds the client. Negligence of its counsel
does not constitute a denial of due process.
33. Razon vs. Pp, 525 SCRA 254 . The only exception is when negligence of counsel is gross, reckless and
inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.
34. Atty. Perez vs. CFI Judge Abiera, 62 SCRA 302 Jurisdiction acquired at time of filing is not lost by cessation
in office of respondent during pendency of his admin case.
35. Mercado vs. Salcedo, 10/16/09 Death of respondent in admin case does not preclude a finding of admin
liability, there are 3 exceptions to this rule
36. Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 679 The conduct of public hearings may be delegated to subordinate officers.
37. Malinao vs. Reyes, 255 SCRA 616 Decision prepared by a SP Member is not the Decision of SP for lack of
signatures of requisite majority
38. Saunar v ES Ermita, 12/13/2017 In administrative proceedings, moreover, technical rules of procedure and
evidence are not strictly applied.
39. DOH Secretary vs. Camposano, 457 SCRA 440 Exercise of disciplining authority’s prerogative requires
prior independent consideration of law and facts.
40. Nacu vs. CSC, 635 SCRA 766 The right against self-incrimination is not self-executory or automatically
operational, it must be claimed at the appropriate time, or else it may be deemed waived.