never received an answer to the charges against her.
AGUIRRE v. NIETO She never appeared in any of the hearings. The case
G.R. No. 220224 Date: August 28, 2019
Ponente: CARANDANG, J. Topic: Constitutional
Commissions – Due Process
FACTS:
1. Abundio Elaurza, a Tree Maker of the DENR-
CENROm filed a complaint against the petitioner
charging her of dishonesty.
2. Elauzra alleged that upon requesting for his salary, the
cashier told him that Aguirre instructed the latter to
deduct Php 480 from Elauzra’s salary for his uniform.
3. Elauzra sought the advice of different officers of the
DENR. Such officers assured him that cost of the
uniforms should be deducted from the bonus, and not
the salary.
4. Elauzra went straight to Aguirre to plead not to the
deduct the amount from his salary. However, Aguirre
allegedly uttered defamatory words against him. Nor
was Elauzra’s uniform delivered to him.
5. The CSC Regional Office V found the Aguirre guilty of
serious dishonesty, discourtesy in the couser of official
duites, and grave misconduct.
a. Penalty: dismissal from the service, forfeiture of
all retirement benefits, cancellation of
eligibility, bar from taking the civil service
examination, and perpetual disqualification for
reemployment from the government service.
6. It was held that the communications made to the
petitioner returned to by the Postal Service since her
residence was always closed. Due to this, the CSC
was decided based on the document presented by
Elauzra.
ISSUE/S: WON Aguirre’s right to due process was violated?
YES.
RULING: The SC held that under Rule 131, Sec. 3(v) of the
ROC, there is a presumption that a letter duly directed and
mailed was received in the regular course of mail. However,
this is only a disputable presumption that attaches the burden of
proof with the party in whose favor the presumption applies.
In this case, Aguirre denied receiving any of the notices of
hearings. She also found that the CSC regional office V has no
records of the alleged pre-hearing conference and the
proceedings of the alleged hearing per se. The SC held that this
denial shifted to the CSC the burden of proving that the notices
were received by Aguirre. However, the CSC did not adduce
any evidence for this matter.
The SC noted that it was even Aguirre who presented the
registry return receipts of the notice of hearing sent to Elauzra
and the registry return receipts of the decision sent to Elauzra.
However, there were no registry return receipts of notices of
hearing and decision sent to Aguirre. If there were, then the
CSC would have documented the such.