[ G.R. No. 186502.

December 13, 2017 ]

CARLOS R. SAUNAR, PETITIONER, V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO

R. ERMITA AND CONSTANCIA P. DE GUZMAN, CHAIRPERSON OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I ON

Facts: Sunaw, was the former Regional Director of the NBi, then became the the
Chief of the ANTI-GRAFT Division. During his time he coonducted the alleged
corrorrruption related to tobacco excise tax involving Governor Singson, Ex
president Estrada and Ex senator Estrada.

later that year Sunaw was reassigned as the regional director for Western
Mindano based in Zomboanga. During his stint he received a subpoena from
sandigan bayan requiring him to testify against the plunder case.

Sunar was informed to report to Mr. Bautista, In the meantime, Bautista did not
assign him any duty and told him to be available at any time whenever he would
be needed. He made himself accessible by staying in establishments

near the NBI. In addition, he also attended court hearings whenever required.

In october 2006, Sunar recieved and order from Precidential Anti-graft

Commision requirimg him to answer the allegation, the charge was based in the
letter from Wycoco recommending an immediate appropriate action against
Saunar for his failure to report for work since 24 March 2005, without approved
leave of absence for four (4) months.

Saunar was reassigned in Bicol later he received a copy of dismissing him from
service.

The CA ruled that Saunar was not deprived of due process. because he was
charged against him and was given the opportunity to defend himself

Issue: Whether or Not there the CA is correct in rling.

Held: No, The Court nds that Saunar was not treated fairly in the proceedings
before the PAGC. He was deprived of the opportunity to appear in all
clari catory hearings since he was not noti ed of the clari catory hearing
attended by an NBI o cial. Saunar was thus denied the chance to propound
questions through the PAGC against the opposing parties, when the rules of the
PAGC itself granted Saunar the right to be present during clari catory hearings
and the chance to ask questions against the opposing party.

fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
 due process is a malleable concept anchored on fairness and equity. The due
process requirement before administrative bodies are not as strict compared to
judicial tribunals in that it su ces that a party is given a reasonable opportunity
to be heard. Nevertheless, such "reasonable opportunity" should not be
con ned to the mere submission of position papers and/or a davits and the
parties must be given the opportunity to examine the witnesses against them.
The right to a hearing is a right which may be invoked by the parties to thresh
out substantial factual issues. It becomes even more imperative when the rules
itself of the administrative body provides for one. While the absence of a formal
hearing does not necessarily result in the deprivation of due process, it should
be acceptable only when the party does not invoke the said right or waives the
same

fi
ffi
ffi