16. Hermogenes Ebdane, Jr., et al. vs. Alvaro Apurillo, et al.

GR. No. 204172 December 9, 2015

 Juanito Alama, DPWH Assistant Head of the BAC Technical Working Group (BAC-TWG) of the DPWH
Tacloban, received an anonymous letter informing him that RM Padillo Builders (RMPB) won bidding for
the construction of the Lirang Revetment Project. This happening despite them not being on the list of
Registered Construction Firms who were qualified to bid.
 Atty. Rodulfo proceeded with investigation and forwarded report to Sec. Ebdane. It was found that RPMB
was indeed not qualified to bid, this Sec. Ebdane charged officials of DPWH Tacloban with Gross
Misconduct and that they be placed under preventive suspension for a period of 90 days.
 Officials of DPWH Tacloban answered that they were not in the postion to answer formal charge due to
lack of basis. They said they relied on RPMB’s sowrn letter that they were registered contractors, as duly
sworn by the latter. Lastly, they expressely waived theur rights to a formal hearing and sought that the case
be decided based on the records.
 Five (5) months later, respondents were re-issued the same Formal Charge, to which they filed their
Answer with Manifestation (second Answer), reiterating their previous statements, and further alleging that
the DPWH Sub-District Office never required them to submit a counter-affidavit/comment, as in fact, it
was only Engr. Baldos who had been issued a Subpoena to submit an answer/explanation regarding the
alleged irregularities in the bidding for the subject project. Moreover, respondents averred that the Formal
Charge served upon them did not state the nature and substance of the charge/s hurled against them.  For
these reasons, respondents demanded that a formal investigation be conducted.
 RTC issued TRO, where later a wirt of Preliminary Injuction was granted.
 Petitioners filed Motion to DImiss on frounds of NON-EXHAUSTION OF ADMIN REMEDIES and
failure to state cause of action.
 RTC ruling – respondents’ rights to admin due process were violated, when deprived to file comment on
anonymous letter and was not accorded prelim investigation.
 CA ruling – affirmed RTC. Hence this appeal to SC

ISSUE:
WON respondents’ due process rights were violated. (NO).

HELD:
The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to
be heard. In administrative proceedings, as in the case at bar, procedural due process simply means the
opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may also be heard thru pleadings.
Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of
procedural due process.

In Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, the Court ruled that any procedural defect in the
proceedings taken against the government employee therein was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration
and by his appealing the adverse result to the administrative agency (in that case, the Civil Service Commission
[CSC]).

In this case, the Court finds that while there were missteps in the proceedings conducted before the DPWH, namely:
(a) respondents were not made to file their initial comment on the anonymous complaint; and (b) no preliminary
investigation was conducted before the filing of the Formal Charge against them, contrary to the sequential
procedure under the URACCS, they were, nonetheless, accorded a fair opportunity to be heard when the Formal
Charge directed them to submit answer within 10 days.

In fact – respondents answered and WAIVED their rights to formal hearing.

Thus, having established that there was no violation of respondents' rights to administrative due process, the CA
incorrectly exempted respondents from compliance with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies.  They are
therefore required to go through the full course of the administrative process where they are still left with remedies.
As case law states, a party with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative
procedure to obtain relief, but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention. If a
remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted
first before the court's judicial power can be sought.

PETIOTION GRANTED. Case is REMANDED to DPWH for continuation of admin proceedings.

15. Apo Cement Corporation vs. Mingson Mining Industries Corporation
G.R. No. 206728 November 12, 2014

FACTS
APO cement corporation submitted a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement to take over Allied 1 and 2
from Luvimin. However, the said mining claims are said to be overlapping with the Yellow Eagle II and VII
belonging to Mingson.

Mingson then prayed that DENR should grant them instead the mining claims since it encroached their
Yellow Eagle claims. This was granted.

APO filed an MR which was eventually granted by the legal division of DENR through a resolution. DENR
Regional Office Director also affirmed the resolution but subjected it to the review of the Panel of
Arbitrators (POA) from Geosciences Bureau which were tasked to resolve the issue involving the claims.

POA upheld the former DENR resolutions awarding the claims to APO, reiterating the findings therein
without requiring the parties to file any pleading or setting the matter for hearing.

Mingson appealed POA’s decision on the ground that it denied them the opportunity to be heard which
is thus repugnant to due process. Mingson’s appeal was granted. Hence, APO elevated the matter to CA.

ISSUE
WON Mingson was denied due process when POA issued its decision without requiring parties to submit
any pleading or setting the matter for hearing

HELD
The court ruled in favor of Mingson.

The CA dismissed APO’s appeal and sustained the DENR MAB’s finding that Mingson was not afforded by
the POA its right to due process because the applicable procedures found in the rules of DENR were not
followed.

Furthermore, the Implementing Rules of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, requires that the parties
involved in mining disputes be given the opportunity to be heard.

“The violation of a party’s right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be
glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is
apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction.”

Hence, since Mingson’s due process rights were violated, the POA’s Decision is considered null and void.
14. First Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff Cudia v Superintendent of PMA
G.R. No. 211362, February 24, 2015

Facts:
Petitioner, Cadet First Class Cudia, was a member of the Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the Philippine
Military Academy. He was supposed to graduate with honors as the class salutatorian, receive the
Philippine Navy Saber as the top Navy Cadet graduate and be commissioned as an ensign of the Navy.

Petitioner was issued a Delinquency Report (DR) because he was late for two minutes in his ENG 412
class, other cadets were also reported late for 5 minutes. The DRs reached the Department of Tactical
Officers and were logged and transmitted to the Company of Tactical Officers (TCO) for explanation.
Cudia incurred the penalty of 11 demerits and 13 touring hours.

Several days after, Cudia was reported to the Honor Committee (HC) per violation of the Honor Code.
Lying that is giving statements that perverts the truth in his written appeal stating that his 4 th period class
ended at 3:00 that made him late for the succeeding class.

Cudia submitted his letter of explanation on the honor report. The HC constituted a team to conduct the
preliminary investigation on the violation, it recommended the case be formalized. Cudia pleaded not
guilty. The result was 8-1 guilty verdict and upon the order of the Chairman, the HC reconvened in the
chambers, after, the Presiding Officer announced a 9-0 guilty verdict.

The HC denied Cudia’s appeal. The Headquarters Tactics Group (HTG) conducted a formal review and
checking of findings. Special orders were issued placing Cudia on indefinite leave of absence and
pending approval of separation from the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Cudia submitted a letter to the
Office of the Commandant of Cadets requesting his re-instatement. The matter was referred to Cadet
Review and Appeals Board (CRAB) and it upheld the decision.

Cudia wrote a letter to President Aquino but the President sustained the findings of the CRAB. CHR-
CAR issued a resolution finding probable cause for Human Rights Violations.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the PMA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Cudia in utter
disregard of his right to due process and in holding that he violated the Honor Code through
lying.
2. Whether or not the court can interfere with military affairs

Ruling:
1. No. The determination of whether the PMA cadet has rights to due process, education, and
property should be placed in the context of the Honor Code. All the administrative remedies were
exhausted. A student of a military academy must be prepared to subordinate his private interest
for the proper functioning of the institution. The PMA may impose disciplinary measures and
punishments as it deems fit and consistent with the peculiar needs of the institution. PMA has
regulatory authority to administratively dismiss erring cadets. PMA has a right to invoke
academic freedom in the enforcement of the internal rules and regulations.
2. Yes. The court is part of the checks-and-balance machinery mandated by Article VIII of the
Constitution. The court’s mandate (according to Section 1, Article 8) is expanded that the duty of
the courts is not only to “settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable” but also “to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government” even if the latter
does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions. No one is above the law,
including the military, especially in violations of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Dispositive:
The petition is denied. The dismissal of Cudia from PMA is affirmed.
13. Hon. Erlinda Pefianco v Maria Luisa Moral
G.R. No. 132248, January 19, 2000

FACTS:  Former DECS Secretary filed an administrative complaint against respondent for

dishonesty.  She was dismissed.  Respondent filed a petition for mandamus to compel petitioner to
furnish her a copy of the DECS Investigation Committee Report.  It was denied.

HELD:  A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and
recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against
him.  He is entitled only to the administrative decision and a reasonable opportunity to meet the
charges and the evidence presented during the hearings of the investigation
committee.  Respondent had been accorded these rights.
12. City of Manila vs. Hon. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr.
G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005
11. Armando Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines
G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008
10. Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CA, and CTA
G.R. No. 125704, August 28, 1998