133. Geronga vs.

Varela

BENJAMIN B. GERONGA, petitioner, vs. HON. EDUARDO VARELA,

TITLE as City Mayor of Cadiz City, respondent.

G.R. No. 160846.

GR NUMBER

DATE February 22, 2008.

PONENTE Austria-Martinez, J

Failure to raise particular arguments is deemed waived; Aspects of

NATURE/ Proceedings; Administrative law

KEYWORDS

Petitioner is an Engineer IV at General Services Department of

FACTS Cadiz, was involved in 2 admin cases: (1) Administrative Case for
Unjust Vexation, Contempt, Insubordination, Conduct Unbecoming a
Public Officer, and Alarm and Scandal; (2) and Administrative Case
for Grave Misconduct and Engaging in Partisan Political Activity. The
City Legal Officer recommended DISMISSAL FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT
and for partisan politics. City Mayor Varela approved both
recommendations and issued Memo addressed to Geronga imposing the
penalty of dismissal. Geronga filed w/ CSC a NOTICE OF APPEAL (w/o
counsel), and further filed a Joint Memo in w/c he discussed ONLY the
second case against him (still w/o counsel). CSC granted the appeal
thereby reinstating the Petitioner. Varela filed Motion for Reconsideration
with the CSC, contending that Geronga could no longer be reinstated as
he failed to appeal the first case against him which ultimately dismissed
Geronga, thus it became final and executory. CSC granted the MR in
favor of Petitioner on the ground that Gerango failed to raise the first
case against him which has already attained finality.

1. Whether or not Gerango was denied the due process of law

ISSUE(S)

Yes.
RULING(S)
The Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner on the first case
filed against him, upon closer inspection, reveal that he was
dismissed for an act which was not alleged in the administrative
charge filed against him. The sworn complaint filed against
Geronga in the first case pertains solely on the alleged defamatory
statements made in his Letter-Answer to the Sworn Complaint and
this according to Varela constitutes Grave Misconduct punishable
by dismissal from the government service. There is no showing
that the Memorandum dismissing Geronga appear that petitioner
was charged with Grave Misconduct or that he was held to answer
for his alleged defamatory statements in the abovementioned
letter hence, the Memorandum Dismissing the petitioner is void ab
initio.

Therefore, there was nothing for Geronga to appeal from since the
Memorandum containing both the first and second administrative
case against him is non-existent
The Court explained “Two fundamental requirements of due
process in administrative cases are that a person must be duly
informed of the charges against him; and that he cannot be
convicted of an offense or crime with which he was not charged. A
deviation from these requirements renders the proceeding invalid
and the judgment issued therein a lawless thing that can be struck
down anytime.”
.