Lupo v.

Administrative Action Board

G.R. No. 89687 | September 26, 1990 | J. Paras

Topic: Cardinal Primary Requirements of Due Process

Case Summary: Fructuso Arroyo (OIC/CDO, Message Center and then CDP of Telecom Office in Buhi) filed a complaint
for Dishonesty against Lupo, based on the alleged exclusion of names of newly-hired employees who appeared related to
high-ranking officials in the region. It is alleged that this was done to conceal the appointment of these employees from
Ignacio Arroyo who previously complained of the illegal termination of his niece and to protect Lupo (since they were
related to high ranking officials). DOTC Secretary found Lupo “guilty as charged”. CSC set aside the DOTC Secretary’s
resolution and remanded the case for investigation. Instead of complying, AAB Chairman Villaluz set the case for trial.
Lupo filed a manifestation, arguing that AAB has no jurisdiction over her case since there was no formal charge. This was
denied, hence this petition for prohibition before the SC. SC ruled that Lupo was denied due process, as required in Secs.
37 and 38 of the Civil Service Law,hence the DOTC Sec’s Resolution and AAB proceedings were declared null and void.

Petitioners: MARIA B. LUPO

Respondents: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BOARD (AAB) (Department of Transportation & Communications Republic of
the Philippines) and JUSTICE ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

DOCTRINE:
Cardinal Requirements of Due Process in administrative proceedings (Jose Rizal College v. NLRC)
a. the right to a hearing which includes, the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof;
b. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
c. the decision must have something to support itself,
d. the evidence must be substantial, and substantial evidence means such evidence as a reasonable mind must
accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
e. the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected;
f. the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts
of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
g. the board or body should in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.

FACTS
1. Ignacio Arroyo inquired into the alleged informal termination of his niece, Nenita Noceda as a daily wage worker in
Buhi Telecom Exchange. This inquiry was dismissed for lack of merit
2. Nov 5 1987 - Fructuso Arroyo (OIC/CDO, Message Center and then CDO of Telecom Office stationed at
Buhi, Camarines Sur and brother of Ignacio in fact 1) filed a complaint for Dishonesty thru Falsification
(Multiple) of Official Documents against Lupo, as Chief of Personnel Section, Telecom Office, Region V at
Legaspi City
a. This was based on the alleged exclusion of several names of newly-hired employees from the
Certification submitted by Lupo in compliance with a Confidential Memorandum of Director Claro Morante
i. The excluded names appeared to be related to ranking officials of the region.
ii. They were excluded to conceal the appointment of said employees from Ignacio Arroyo who had
previously complained of the alleged illegal termination of his niece (fact 1)
b. Lupo HAD to falsify the list to comply with the Confidential Memo to the prejudice of Nenita
Noceda and to protect her (Lupo’s) future interest in because the excluded names were related to
high-ranking officials in the Office
3. Telecom Investigator Calapano, acting on Fructuso’s unverified complaint, conducted an informal fact-finding
inquiry an came out with a Memorandum recommending that Lupo be STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same offense will be dealt with more severely
4. DOTC Secretary Resolution - found Lupo GUILTY AS CHARGED
a. This was based solely on Calapano’s Memorandum
b. Lupo was suspended for 1 yr and disqualified from promotion for 1 yr
5. Lupo appealed to the CSC, arguing that she was denied due process in the proceedings
 6. CSC Merit Systems Board - SET ASIDE the DOTC Resolution and REMANDED the case for further
investigation to the Telecom Office of Region 5 and to conform w/ procedural due process requirements
7. Instead of complying with the above order, respondent Chairman Villaluz of the AAB issued the Order of July
5, 1989 setting the case for trial
8. Before the scheduled trial, Lupo filed a Manifestation and Motion informing Villaliz that NO FORMAL
CHARGE had been instituted against her, therefore AAB had NO JURISDICTION over the case
a. This manifestation and motion was denied for lack of merit and the case was again set for hearing
9. Hence this petition for prohibition, seeking to direct AAB and Chairman Villaluz to desist from assuming
jurisdiction over her admin case until it is finally disposed of by AAB and to refrain from setting the case from
hearing

ARGUMENTS BEFORE SC
Lupo argues that AAB had no jurisdiction over her admin case because
- There was no formal charge
- The proceedings conducted were a mere fact-finding inquiry

Chairman Villaluz argues that

- the Order of the Merit Systems Board of the Civil Service Commission was rendered without lawful authority since
Lupo's appeal to said Board was filed when the assailed resolution had already become final and executory;
- that the Board, not having acquired jurisdiction to entertain the appeal for having been filed beyond the
reglementary period could not have legally rendered its decision in the said administrative case.
- Regional Office No. V could no longer take cognizance of the case as per order of the Merit Systems Board for
the reason that the decision had already become final and executory.

ISSUES
1. W/N AAB acquired jurisdiction over Adm. Case no. AAB-034-88 despite the absence of a formal charge? -
NO

RULE - Cardinal Requirements of Due Process in administrative proceedings (Jose Rizal College v. NLRC)
a. the right to a hearing which includes, the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof;
b. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
c. the decision must have something to support itself,
d. the evidence must be substantial, and substantial evidence means such evidence as a reasonable mind must
accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
e. the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected;
f. the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts
of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
g. the board or body should in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.

RULE- Complaints against employees in the Civil Service Career System are governed by PD 807 (see notes)
- This mandate of P.D. No. 807 has been recognized and implemented by AAB when it declared in Office Order No.
88-318 dated July 1, 1988 that the Board shall observe the pertinent civil service rules and policies designed to
expedite action on cases referred to it

APPLICATION - The mandatory requirements of due process were ignored. She was denied her right to formal
and full-blown administrative proceedings. AAB had no jurisdiction over the proceedings.

Comparison of what Civil Service Law requires and what happened to Lupo

CSC Law What happened to Lupo

Sec. 37 (a) - The CSC shall decide upon appeal all Clearly, the enforcement of the penalty imposed upon
administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of petitioner under the resolution of the Secretary of the
a penalty of suspension for more than 30 days, or fine, in Department of Transportation and Communications was
an amount exceeding 30 days salary. premature
 Sec 37 (b) - the decisions of heads of departments Lupo was made to suffer the penalty of suspension for 1 yr
become final only in cases where the penalty imposed is when such penalty should not have been implemented
suspension for not more than 30 days or fine in an amount without the appeal to the CSC for proper review.
not exceeding thirty (30) days' salary.

Sec 38 (a) - Administrative proceedings are commenced Investigation was defective and irregular. Arroyo’s letter
by the head of a department or office upon sworn, written complaint was not verified but was made the basis of the
complaint of any other persons informal inquiry

Sec 38 (c) - Although the respondent does not request a
formal investigation, one shall be conducted when from
the allegations of the complaint and the answer of the
respondent, the merits of the case cannot be decide
judiciously without conducting such an investigation
When Lupo’s answer to the unverified complaint was
found unsatisfactory, she was never given a chance to
decide whether or not to submit herself to a formal
investigation

- The Memorandum of Telecom Investigator Calapano to the Regional Director (fact 3) is merely recommendatory
- The informal investigation was only an inquiry into the alleged dishonest acts of petitioner in which case,
the Memorandum could not be made as the basis for any final resolution of the case.
- What was the legal proper procedure?
- Regional Director of Region V, the alter ego of the department secretary to initiate the formal
complaint on the basis of the results of the inquiry of the Telecom Investigator.
- Instead of observing the mandatory rules on formal investigations as prescribed by PD No. 807, the DOTC
Secretary cut corners and apparently railroaded this case by rendering the assailed resolution.
- The Telecom investigator exceeded his authority by imposing a penalty on Lupo
- His job was limited to an inquiry into the facts to determine if a prima facie case existed. His findings are
only preparatory to the filing of the formal administrative case by the regional director
- The Telecom Director who was supposed to review the findings of the Telecom Investigator merely affixed his
approval within the Memorandum, thus obviously indicating that he never reviewed the merits of the case.
- Even DOTC Asst. Sec. Sibal informed AAB Chairman Villaluc that DOTC DID NOT FILE any administrative
complaint or formal charge against Lupo
- Despite this, Chairman Villaluzs still ordered the hearing for the case

RULING - Resolution of the DOTC Secretary and proceedings before AAB are declared NULL AND VOID

DOTC Secretary is directed to restore Lupo’s record of service for the period which she served under suspension and to
delete from her personnel file the period within which she was disqualified for promotion.

NOTES

Civil Service Law

SECTION 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. — (a) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving
the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount, exceeding thirty days' salary, demotion in rank
or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen against
a government official or employee in which case it may hear any department or agency or and decide the case or it may deputize
official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission with
recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other action to be taken.

(b) The heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate
and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. Their decisions shall be final in
case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days' salary. In case the
decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department
and finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the
same shall be executory only after confirmation by the department head.
(c) An investigation may be entrusted to regional director or similar officials who shall make the necessary report and recommendation
to the chief of bureau or office or department within the period specified in Paragraph (d) of the following Section.

(d) An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and in case the penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall
be considered as having been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the event he wins an appeal.

SEC. 38. Procedure in Administrative Cases Against Non-Presidential Appointees. — a) Administrative proceedings may be
commenced against a subordinate officer or employee by the head of department or office of equivalent rank, or head of local
government, or chiefs of agencies, or regional directors, or upon sworn, written complaint of any other persons.

(b) In the case of a complaint filed by any other persons, the complainant shall submit sworn statements covering his testimony and
those of his 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 exist, 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 disciplining authority shall dismiss the case.

(c) 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. . . .