Cesa v Ombudsman

Facts: Government auditors conducted a surprise audit at the Cash Division of Cebu City Hall. Getting
wind of the surprise, paymaster Rosalinda Badana left her office and never returned. Badana had cash
advances of more than 216 million and was granted more advances without liquidating previous advances.
Ombudsman concluded that the irregularities could not have happened without the officials acts and
omissions, as they failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent losses of funds
and efficiently supervise paymasters. However, petitioner argued that he could not grant cash advances as
the authority belongs to a higher officer and he signed the cash advance vouchers not as approving officer
but because his signature was required therein. For the petitioner, Badanas cash advances were legal and
necessary for city workers salaries.

Ombudsman suspended Cesa and other city officials for 6 months without pay because of neglect of duty.
In the Court of Appeals, Cesa argued that there was lack of due process because the complaint against
him was not verified. He also argued that the ombudsman had no power to suspend him and for there was
no legal and factual basis. CA, dismissed the petitioners complain.

Issue: Whether or not Cesas right to due process was violated when he was suspended for six months as
city treasurer.

Ruling: According to the court, Due process in administrative proceedings simply means an opportunity to
seek reconsideration of the order complained of and it cannot be fully equated with that in strict
jurisprudential sense. A respondent is not entitled to be informed of the preliminary findings and
recommendations of the investigating agency.

Cesa had no right to be notified of the auditing teams preliminary report while graft investigators wre
reviewing it. Cesa was given every opportunity to explain his side and to present evidence in his defense
during administrative investigation. He even admitted that he was required to file a counter-affidavit without
a formal charge which actually contradicts to his claim of denial of due process.