[Melendrez v PAGC] (2012)
including making slanderous remarks that led to
[Villarama, Jr.]
Summary and Doctrine:
The case is a petition for review assailing the
decision of the CA which dismissing a petition of
certiorari to review the acts PAGC Hearing
commissioner who ruled on evidence presented
without conducting a formal hearing to allow
petitioner to present his case. Petitioner was
found guilty of some offenses filed by his own
colleagues on his official capacity as executive
director of LCP. PAGC recommended his
dismissal from his position. OP released AO 59
which declared the findings of PAGC are in order.
OP dismissed petitioner from his position and
forfeited accrued government benefits. SC ruled
that PAGC Hearing Chair did not violate of equal
protection and due process clause.
Denial of request for formal investigation is not
tantamount to a denial of right to due process, so
long as one is given the chance to answer the
charges filed against a person.
I. FACTS:
15 physicians of the Lung Center of the Philippines
lodged a complaint before the Secretary of Health on
the acts and conduct of petitioner, Dr. Fernando
Melendres, on his capacity as Executive Director of
LCP. They alleged that petitioner has grossly abused
and violated his position. Charges include
procurements without proper bidding, excessive use of
allowances, awarding contracts that benefit his person,
demoting colleagues in the LCP, questionable
appointments, among others (total of 16).
SOH created a fact-finding committee to look into the
complaint. Committee found prima facie evidence on
four of the charges. LCP Board of Trustees, chaired by
SOH, adopted the findings and issued a resolution
recommending to the OP the filing of formal admin.
charges. At the same time, the complainants issued a
manifesto expressing that they feel that petitioner does
not deserve his position because of numerous acts
demoralization among the ranks of LCP.
On Oct. 2002, a complaint affidavit was filed before
PAGC chaired by Commissioner Buenaflor. Finding
sufficient basis to commence an investigation,
Buenaflor issued an order on Nov. 2002 directing
petitioner to submit within 10 days his answer or
Counter-Affidavit. Petitioner complied, and a
preliminary conference was then scheduled.
At the preliminary conference, petitioner appeared with
his counsel. Parties were then directed to submit within
5 days their respective position papers and declared
that based on record and pleadings, the case is
deemed for resolution.
Petitioner's counsel contested such and filed a Motion
for Formal Hearing and/or Investigation invoking Sec.
22 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service. Petitioner also filed a motion
asking Buenaflor to inhibit citing bias on the latter's
side. Both petitions were denied.
Complainants complied and filed their position papers.
However, petitioner did not and instead, filed a case
before CA. Petitioner argued that the PAGC order is a
patent nullity because of the undue haste on the
conduct of proceedings. Thus, petitioner claims his
rights on substantive and procedural due process were
violated as it deprived him of opportunity to submit
supplemental affidavit.
At the same time, PAGC submitted case for resolution
before OP and OP released AO 59 dismissing
petitioner in his position and forfeiting his government
benefits.
CA also denied petitioner's petition and held that there
was no violation of the latter's rights to substantive and
procedural due process.
II. ISSUES:
WoN CA erred in dismissing petition for certiorari? NO.
WoN petitioner was denied due process when PAGC
Commissioner did not grant his request for formal
hearing and investigation? NO.
III. RATIONALE:
SC ruled that petition has no merit.
SC ruled that the Buenaflor followed the letter of the
law to its letter in the conduct of proceedings. This is
because while there is Sec. 22 of the URACC. The
PAGC is also governed by a special law that lets the
commissioner set a hearing at his own discretion. In
lieu of hearing, the commission may require written
answers or submission of affidavits and position
papers for both parties. The commission is also
allowed to submit the case for resolution after giving
time and opportunity to both parties to submit their
respective position papers.
On the matter of due process, the SC ruled that as long
as the party is given the chance to be heard and to
defend himself, there is no violation of his rights to
substantive and procedural due process.
In the present case, the petitioner was given enough
opportunity to answer the allegations filed against him.
SC also ruled that while criminal cases filed against the
petitioner were dismissed, the administrative cases are
distinct and separate in character. Thus, a public
official can be made to answer in three-ways:
administratively, civilly, and criminally.

IV. DISPOSITIVE:

Petition denied. CA ruling affirmed.