lawphil

Today is Saturday, September 21, 2013

Search

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SE !"# #$%$S$!" G.R. No. 181851 March 9, 2010

CAPT. WILFREDO G. RO UERO, Petitioner, &s' T!E C!ANCELLOR OF UP"MANILA# T!E ADMINISTRATI$E DISCIPLINAR% TRI&UNAL 'ADT( OF UP"MANILA# ATT%. )ALD% &. DOCENA# EDEN PERDIDO# ISA&ELLA LARA, IN T!EIR CAPACITIES AS C!AIRMAN a*+ MEM&ERS OF T!E ADT# a*+ IMELDA O. A&UTAL, Respondents' #E PERE), J.: This is a petition for re&iew on certiorari under Rule () see*in+ to set aside the #ecision 1 dated 22 March 200,, and the Resolution2 dated 1 -ebruary 200., of the ourt of the /ppeals in /01'R' SP "o' .,,,2 entitled, 3 apt' 4ilfredo 1' Ro5uero &' The hancellor of the 6ni&ersity of the Philippine0Manila 76P Manila8, et al',3 a petition for ertiorari under Rule 2) of the Rules of i&il Procedure with Prayer for the $ssuance of a Temporary Restrainin+ !rder 7TR!8, which sou+ht to re&erse and set aside the !rders dated . 9une 200(3 and : "o&ember 200(( of the /dministrati&e #isciplinary Tribunal 7/#T8 of 6P0Manila, chaired by /tty' ;aldy <' #ocena with Eden Perdido and $sabella =ara as members' The undisputed facts of the case as found by the ourt of /ppeals are as follows> $S$!"

Petitioner 4ildredo 1' Ro5uero is an employee of 6P0Manila assi+ned at the Philippine 1eneral ?ospital 7P1?8 Security #i&ision as Special Police aptain' Pri&ate respondent $melda !' /butal is a =ady 1uard of E@0<ataan Security /+ency who was applyin+ for a position in the security force assi+ned at 6P0P1?' The instant contro&ersy arose from a complaint by pri&ate respondent /butal with then hancellor of 6P0Manila Perla #' Santos0 !campo for 1ra&e Misconduct a+ainst petitioner apt' Ro5uero' The formal char+e filed on 1 !ctober 1::. and doc*eted as /#M ase "o' 6PM0/ :,000, reads as follows> /fter preliminary in&esti+ation duly conducted in accordance with the Rules and Re+ulations on the #iscipline of 6P -aculty and Employees, a prima facie case has been found to e@ist a+ainst you for 1R/%E M$S !"#6 T punishable under the 6ni&ersity Rules and Re+ulations on the #iscipline of 6P -aculty and Employees in relation to the i&il Ser&ice =aw, committed as follows> That you, apt' 4ilfredo Ro5uero of the 6P Manila Police -orce, sometime in /pril 1::2, while conductin+ an inter&iew on MS' $ME=#/ /<6T/= who was then applyin+ for the position of =ady 1uard of E@0<ataan Security /+ency to be assi+ned at 6P0 P1?, proposed to her that if she a+reed to be your mistress, you would facilitate her application and +i&e her a permanent positionA that despite the fact the MS' /<6T/= reBected your proposal, you still insisted on demandin+ said se@ual fa&or from herA that you, therefore, are liable for 1R/%E M$S !"#6 T under Section 22, para+raph 7c8 of Rule C$% of the !mnibus Rules $mplementin+ <oo* % of E'!' 2:2 on i&il Rules' @ @ @ @' !n 1 !ctober 1::., the petitioner was placed under pre&enti&e suspension for ninety 7:08 days by the material portion of said !rder reads> hancellor Santos0!campo,

onsiderin+ the +ra&ity of the offense char+ed and pursuant to Section 1: of Rules and Re+ulations on the #iscipline of 6P -aculty Members and Employees and Section 22 and 2, Rule C$% of <oo* % of E@ecuti&e !rder "o' 2:2 and !mnibus Rules, you are hereby pre&enti&ely suspended for ninety 7:08 days effecti&e upon receipt hereof' 4hile on pre&enti&e suspension, you are hereby re5uired to appear before the /dministrati&e #isciplinary Tribunal 7/#T8 whene&er your presence is necessary' Thereafter, the /dministrati&e #isciplinary Tribunal 7/#T8 composed of /tty' ;aldy <' #ocena, Eden Perdido and $sabella =ara, was or+aniDed to hear the instant case' /tty' Paul /' -lor, as 6ni&ersity Prosecutor, represented the prosecution' ?e was later on replaced by /tty' /steria -elicen' Petitioner was represented by /tty' =eo 1' =ee of the Public /ttorneys !ffice 7P/!8 who was then replaced by Public /ttorney Phil+er $no&eBas' The Prosecution presented its only witness, pri&ate respondent /butal' /fter the completion of the cross0e@amination on the prosecutionEs only witness, the prosecution a+reed to submit its -ormal !ffer of E&idence on or before 12 9uly 1:::' @@@@ The prosecution, howe&er, failed to submit its formal offer of e&idence within the period a+reed upon' Thereafter, on 10 /u+ust 1:::, when the case was called, only petitioner and his counsel appeared' /tty' -lor merely called by telephone and re5uested /tty' #ocena to reset the case to another date' /tty' #ocena then ordered the resettin+ of the hearin+ on the followin+ dates> 11 /u+ust and 21 /u+ust 1:::' !n 11 /u+ust 1:::, only petitioner and his counsel came' "o representati&e from the prosecution appeared before the /#T' /tty' -lor a+ain called and as*ed for the postponement of the hearin+' <y reason thereof, /tty' #ocena issued an !rder, which reads as follows> The continuation of the hearin+ of this case is hereby set to September 2:, 1::: at 2>00 p'm', with the understandin+ that if and

when the parties fail to appear at said hearin+ date, this case shall be deemed submitted for resolution based on the e&idences already obtainin+ in the record of the case' S! !R#ERE#' 11 /u+ust 1:::' !n said date, the representati&e from the prosecution a+ain failed to appear' !n 22 !ctober 1:::, petitioner filed a Motion throu+h counsel prayin+ that complainant 7pri&ate respondent herein8 be declared to ha&e wai&ed her ri+hts to formally offer her e@hibits since complainant was not able to file her -ormal !ffer within the +i&en period of fifteen 71)8 days from 1 9uly 1::: or up to 12 9uly 1:::' The /#T was not able to act on the said Motion for almost fi&e 7)8 years' #ue to the unreasonable delay, petitioner, on 1: May 200( filed another Motion as*in+ for the dismissal of the administrati&e case a+ainst him' The Motion to #ismiss was anchored on the followin+ reasons> that the prosecution had not formally offered its e&idenceA that the /#T had failed to act on the motion filed on 22 !ctober 1:::A that the unfounded char+es in the administrati&e complaint were filed Bust to harass himA and that he is entitled to a Bust and speedy disposition of the case' !n 22 May 200(, the prosecution, represented by /tty' -elicen in &iew of the resi+nation of /tty' -lor in /u+ust 1:::, filed its ommentF!pposition to the Motion to #ismiss' The prosecution alle+ed that a -ormal !ffer of #ocumentary E@hibits had been filed on 2( 9anuary 200(, of which a copy thereof was recei&ed by /tty' =ee, petitionerEs counsel, on 30 9anuary 200(, per re+istry return receipt' ?owe&er, petitioner has not filed his comment to the said -ormal !ffer' -urthermore, the prosecution e@plained in its ommentF!pposition that in &iew of the resi+nation of /tty' -lor in /u+ust 1::: but who had been on lea&e by mid09uly 1:::, the -ormal !ffer could not be prepared by another counsel until all the transcript of steno+raphic notes ha&e been furnished to the counsel that replaced /tty' -lor' Meanwhile, the steno+rapher, 9amie =imba+a, had been in and out of the hospital due to a serious illness, thus the delay in the filin+ of the prosecutorEs -ormal !ffer of #ocumentary E@hibits' !n . 9une 200(, /tty' #ocena issued the assailed !rder denyin+ petitionerEs motion to dismiss, to wit> /ctin+ on respondentEs Motion to #ismiss, as well as the 6ni&ersity ProsecutorEs omment andFor !pposition to said Motion, and findin+ that said Motion to #ismiss to be bereft of merit, the same is hereby #E"$E#' $n &iew of the failure of the respondent to file his comment on the ProsecutionEs -ormal !ffer of E&idence, the E@hibitEs 73/3 to 310 138 of the Prosecution are hereby /#M$TTE# for the purpose for which the same ha&e been offered' The respondent is hereby directed to present his e&idence on 9une 22, 200( at 10>30 in the mornin+' S! !R#ERE#' / motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but the same was denied in an !rder dated : "o&ember 200(' ) Petitioner aptain 4ilfredo Ro5uero then filed with the ourt of /ppeals a Petition for ertiorari under Rule 2), doc*eted as /0 1'R' SP "o' .,,,2, alle+in+ therein that the /#T committed +ra&e abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss the administrati&e case filed a+ainst him' $n a #ecision dated 22 March 200,, the ?onorable ourt of /ppeals denied the petition with prayer for TR! of Ro5uero reasonin+ that the /#T did not commit +ra&e abuse of discretion in issuin+ the assailed orders'

The

ourt of /ppeals ruled, thus>

The main issue to be resol&ed is whether the /#T +ra&ely abused its discretion amountin+ to lac* or e@cess of Burisdiction when it issued the !rder denyin+ petitionerEs motion to dismiss the administrati&e case filed a+ainst him' 4e rule in the ne+ati&e' Petitioner ar+ues that the administrati&e case a+ainst him should be dismissed because of the failure of the prosecution to file its -ormal !ffer of E&idence within the a+reed period' 4e do not a+ree' The appropriate rule in this case is Section 2, of the 6niform Rules on /dministrati&e to wit> ases in the i&il Ser&ice, which pro&ides,

4hen the presentation of e&idence has been concluded, the parties shall formally offer their e&idence either orally or in writin+ and thereafter obBections thereto may also be made either orally or in writin+' /fter which, both parties may be +i&en time to submit their respecti&e memorandum which in no case shall GbeH beyond fi&e 7)8 days after the termination of the in&esti+ation' -ailure to submit the same within the +i&en period shall be considered a wai&er thereof' The failure to file a formal offer of e&idence amounts to no more than a wai&er of the ri+ht to file the same' $n administrati&e cases, particularly, where the 6niform Rules on /dministrati&e ases in the i&il Ser&ice applies, the absence of a formal offer of e&idence does not bar the ad&erse party from presentin+ its e&idence' Section 3 of the 6niform Rules on /dministrati&e ases in the i&il Ser&ice pro&ides>

/dministrati&e in&esti+ations shall be conducted without necessarily adherin+ strictly to the technical rules of procedure and e&idence applicable to Budicial proceedin+s' 4hile under the Rules of ourt, a formal offer may be indispensable because the rules on e&idence so re5uire it, the same is not true in administrati&e cases' There is no pro&ision in the 6niform Rules on /dministrati&e ases in the i&il Ser&ice a*in to Section 3(, Rule 132 of the Rules of ourt' -urthermore, Section 2, of the 6niform Rules states that the failure to file a formal offer of e&idence amounts to a mere wai&er thereof, and not a dismissal of the action' /s such, petitioner cannot claim a &ested ri+ht to a dismissal of his case below Bust because a formal offer was not filed within the a+reed period' $n addition thereto, the 6niform Rules +i&e the hearin+ officer a leeway when it pro&ided that @ @ @ the hearin+ officer shall accept all e&idence deemed material and rele&ant to the case' $n case of doubt, he shall allow the admission of e&idence subBect to the obBection interposed a+ainst its admission' $n the case at bar, records show that in fact, a formal offer of e&idence was filed by the prosecution, a copy of which was recei&ed by petitionerEs counsel' The action of the /#T in admittin+ the prosecutionEs e@hibits was consistent with the abo&e0 mentioned Rules' Thus, the tribunal acted within the bounds of its authority' 1ra&e abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical e@ercise of Bud+ment as is e5ui&alent to lac* of Burisdiction, or in other words, where the power is e@ercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, preBudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and +ross as to amount to an e&asion of a positi&e duty or to a &irtual refusal to perform the duty enBoined or to act at all in contemplation of law'

To reiterate, the admission of the e@hibits for the prosecution is in accordance with Section 3, 2,, and 2. of the 6niform Rules on /dministrati&e ases in the i&il Ser&ice' $n admittin+ the e@hibits for the prosecution, petitioner was not denied the opportunity to present his e&idence' $n fact, he could ha&e presented his e&idence as early as 11 /u+ust 1::: but he did not do so' 4?ERE-!RE, for utter lac* of merit, the instant petition with prayer for temporary restrainin+ order is hereby #E"$E#' 2 Ro5uero mo&ed for reconsideration of the #ecision, but the same was li*ewise denied by the promul+ated on 1 -ebruary 200.' Ro5uero is now before us see*in+ the re&ersal of the decision and resolution of the ourt of /ppeals in its Resolution

ourt of /ppeals'

The core issue of this case is whether the failure of the /#T to resol&e Ro5ueroEs Motion 7to declare complainant $melda /butal to ha&e wai&ed her ri+ht to submit her -ormal !ffer of E@hibit8 which he seasonably filed on 22 !ctober 1::: and the assailed !rder of the /#T dated . 9une 200( admittin+ the -ormal !ffer of E@hibit of complainant $melda /butal despite ha&in+ filed after almost fi&e years &iolated the constitutional ri+ht of Ro5uero to a speedy disposition of cases' 4e find merit in the petition' The ourt of /ppeals faulted petitioner for his failure to present his own e&idence which 3he could ha&e done as early as 11 /u+ust 1:::'3, $t must be noted, howe&er, that petitionerEs 22 !ctober 1::: motion to declare complainant to ha&e wai&ed her ri+ht to submit her -ormal !ffer of E@hibit remained unresol&ed' This is reason enou+h for Ro5uero to defer presentation of his own e&idence' $ndeed, while Section 2, of the 6niform Rules on /dministrati&e ases in i&il Ser&ice states that the failure to submit the formal offer of e&idence within the +i&en period shall be considered as wai&er thereof, the /#T in fact allowed the prosecution to present its formal offer almost fi&e 7)8 years later or on 2( 9anuary 200(' Startin+ on that date, petitioner was presented with the choice to either present his e&idence or to, as he did, file a motion to dismiss owin+ to the e@traordinary len+th of time that /#T failed to rule on his motion' 4e cannot accept the findin+ of the ourt of /ppeals that there was no +ra&e abuse of discretion on the part of the /#T because 3a formal offer of e&idence was filed by the prosecution, a copy of which was recei&ed by petitionersE counsel'3 . The admission by /#T on . 9une 200( of the formal offer of e@hibits belatedly filed did not cure the )0year delay in the resolution of petitionerEs 1::: motion to deem as wai&ed such formal offer of e&idence' $ndeed, the delay of almost fi&e 7)8 years cannot be Bustified' The prosecution tried to e@plain in its ommentF!pposition dated 22 May 200(, that the resi+nation of /tty' Paul -lor in /u+ust 1:::, who had by then already been on lea&e since mid09uly 1:::, contributed to the delay of the filin+ of the formal offer and that the formal offer could not be prepared by another counsel until all the transcripts of steno+raphic notes had been +i&en to him' /lso, it was pointed out that the steno+rapher, 9aime =imba+a, had been in and out of the hospital due to a serious illness' :

1avvphi1

The /#T admitted this e@planation of the prosecutor hoo*, line and sin*er without as*in+ why it too* him almost fi&e 7)8 years to ma*e that e@planation' $f the e@cuses were true, the prosecution could ha&e easily manifested with the /#T of its predicament ri+ht after Ro5uero filed his motion to declare the wai&er of the formal offer' $t is e&ident too that the prosecution failed to e@plain why it too* them so lon+ a time to find a replacement for the ori+inal prosecutor' /nd, the steno+rapher who had been in and out of the hospital due to serious illness should ha&e been replaced sooner' 4hile it is true that administrati&e in&esti+ations should not be bound by strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure and e&idence applicable to Budicial proceedin+s, 10 the same howe&er should not &iolate the constitutional ri+ht of respondents to a speedy disposition of cases'

Section 12, /rticle $$$ of the 1:.,

onstitution pro&ides>

Section 12' /ll person shall ha&e the ri+ht to a speedy disposition of their cases before all Budicial, 5uasi0Budicial, or administrati&e bodies' The constitutional ri+ht to a 3speedy disposition of cases3 is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedin+s but e@tends to all parties in all cases, includin+ ci&il and administrati&e cases, and in all proceedin+s, includin+ Budicial and 5uasi0Budicial hearin+s' ?ence, under the onstitution, any party to a case may demand e@peditious action by all officials who are tas*ed with the administration of Bustice'11 The ri+ht to a speedy disposition of a case, li*e the ri+ht to a speedy trial, is deemed &iolated only when the proceedin+s are attended by &e@atious, capricious, and oppressi&e delaysA or when unBustified postponements of the trial are as*ed for and securedA or e&en without cause or Bustifiable moti&e, a lon+ period of time is allowed to elapse without the party ha&in+ his case tried' E5ually applicable is the balancin+ test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his ri+ht to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant is wei+hed, and such factors as the len+th of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such ri+ht by the accused, and the preBudice caused by the delay' The concept of a speedy disposition is a relati&e term and must necessarily be a fle@ible concept'12 ?ence, the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether that ri+ht has been &iolated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are as follows> 718 the len+th of delayA 728 the reasons for the delayA 738 the assertion or failure to assert such ri+ht by the accusedA and 7(8 the preBudice caused by the delay' 13 /pplyin+ the doctrinal rulin+ vis-a-vis the factual milieu of this case, the &iolation of the ri+ht to a speedy disposition of the case a+ainst petitioner is clear for the followin+ reasons> 718 the delay of almost fi&e 7)8 years on the part of /#T in resol&in+ the motion of petitioner, which resolution petitioner reasonably found necessary before he could present his defenseA 728 the unreasonableness of the delayA and 738 the timely assertions by petitioner of the ri+ht to an early disposition which he did throu+h a motion to dismiss' !&er and abo&e this, the delay was preBudicial to petitionerEs cause as he was under pre&enti&e suspension for ninety 7:08 days, and durin+ the interre+num of almost fi&e years, the trial of the accusation a+ainst him remained sta+nant at the prosecution sta+e' The onstitutional +uarantee a+ainst unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases was intended to stem the tide of disenchantment amon+ the people in the administration of Bustice by our Budicial and 5uasi0Budicial tribunals' 1(The adBudication of cases must not only be done in an orderly manner that is in accord with the established rules of procedure but must also be promptly decided to better ser&e the ends of Bustice' E@cessi&e delay in the disposition of cases renders the ri+hts of the people +uaranteed by the onstitution and by &arious le+islations inutile' 1) 4?ERE-!RE, the Petition is hereby 1R/"TE#' The assailed #ecision dated 22 March 200, and Resolution dated 1 -ebruary 200. of the ourt of /ppeals in /01'R' SP "o' .,,,2 are hereby RE%ERSE# and SET /S$#E' The /dministrati&e #isciplinary Tribunal 7/#T8 of the 6ni&ersity of the Philippines0Manila, /tty' ;aldy <' #ocena, Eden Perdido and $sabella =ara, in their capacities as hairman and Members of the /#T respecti&ely, are hereby !R#ERE# to #$SM$SS the administrati&e case a+ainst apt' 4ilfredo 1' Ro5uero for &iolation of his constitutional ri+ht to a speedy disposition of cases' S! !R#ERE#' ,OSE PORTUGAL PERE) /ssociate 9ustice

4E !" 6R> ANTONIO T. CARPIO /ssociate 9ustice hairperson ARTURO D. &RION /ssociate 9ustice RO&ERTO A. A&AD /ssociate 9ustice /TTEST/T$!" $ attest that the conclusions in the abo&e #ecision were reached in consultation before the case was assi+ned to the writer of the opinion of the ourtEs #i&ision' ANTONIO T. CARPIO /ssociate 9ustice hairperson, Second #i&ision ERT$-$ /T$!" MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO /ssociate 9ustice

Pursuant to Section 13, /rticle %$$$ of the onstitution, and the #i&ision hairpersonEs /ttestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the abo&e #ecision were reached in consultation before the case was assi+ned to the writer of the opinion of the ourtEs #i&ision' RE%NATO S. PUNO hief 9ustice

Foo-*o-./ Penned by /ssociate 9ustice Monina /re&alo ;eIarosa, with /ssociate 9ustices Marina =' <uDon and Ed+ardo -' Sundiam concurrin+' Rollo, pp' 1,02,'
1 2

$d' at 2:030' / rollo, p' 1.' $d' at 21' $d' at 1.023' $d' at 23022'

Rollo, p' 22' $d' at 2)' $d' at 22' Section 3 of the 6niform Rules on /dministrati&e ases in i&il Ser&ice' adalin &' P!E/Es /dministrator, 1'R' "o'

10

=opeD, 9r' &' !ffice of the !mbudsman, (1, Phil' 3:, (: 720018 citin+ 10(,,2, ) #ecember 1::(, 23. S R/ ,21, ,2)'
11 12

<inay &' Sandi+anbayan, 1'R' "os' 1202.10.3, 1 !ctober 1:::, 312 S R/ 2), :)'

#ela PeIa &' Sandi+anbayan, (12 Phil' :21, :2: 720018 citin+ /l&iDo &' Sandi+anbayan, 1'R' "o' 1012.:, 1, March 1::3, 220 S R/ )), 23'
13 1(

R6;, onstitutional =aw, 200, Ed', p' 2:)' Matias &' Plan, /'M' "o' MT90:.011):, 3 /u+ust 1::., 2:3 S R/ )32, )3.0)3:'

1)

The =awphil ProBect 0 /rellano =aw -oundation