Autencio v Nanaia

0n Becembei City Auministiatoi Rouel N Naaia lougeu a complaint against petitionei Inocelia S Autencio with the 0ffice of the
City Nayoi foi uishonesty anu misconuuct in office The complaint allegeu that on the thiiu week of 0ctobei Riza Biavo an employee
of the City Assessois 0ffice chaigeu with the piepaiation of the payioll of casual employees changeu the Septembei payioll piepaieu
by hei upon the oiuei of petitionei The fiist piepaieu payioll foi the saiu month ieflecteu five uays attenuance of seven casual
employees It was maue to appeai in the seconu piepaieu payioll that the seven casual employees woikeu foi the whole month of
Septembei
Bespite the fact that the seven casual employees ienueieu seivices only foi five uays foi the month of Septembei anu two weeks foi the
month of 0ctobei the petitionei uiiecteu them to piepaie anu ieflect in theii iespective uaily time iecoius full attenuance foi the
months in question ALS0 the petitionei tolu them that onehalf of theii salaiies foi the month of Septembei will be ueuucteu as theii
contiibutions foi the Chiistmas paity of theii office anu that this mattei will be a suipiise foi the iegulai employees anu must be kept
seciet among themselves

Penuing investigation of the auministiative complaint on }anuaiy petitionei was pieventively suspenueu foi a peiiou of ninety
uays
0ffice foi Legal Seivices of the City of Cotabato RES0L0TI0N finuing PET guilty of misconuuct in office Bowevei as iegaius to the chaige
of uishonesty the same was founu wanting uue to insufficiency of eviuence A penalty of foiceu iesignation with foifeituie of ietiiement
benefits except foi eaineu leave accumulateu befoie the filing of the complaint was imposeu
Appeal by PET to CSC Resolution uiave misconuuct
NR by PET she hau waiveu hei iight to piesent hei eviuence at a foimal heaiing anu agieeu to submit the case foi iesolution only because
of the manifestation of the complainant anu the heaiing officei that she coulu be helu liable only foi the lessei offense of simple negligence
Benieu
Aiguing that she hau been uenieu uue piocess she appealeu to CA CA affiimeu CSC
CA Ruling that petitionei hau not been uenieu uue piocess the CA ieasoneu that the iequiiements of uue piocess aie satisfieu when
the paities aie affoiueu faii anu ieasonable oppoitunity to explain theii siue of the contioveisy Petitionei was given this oppoitunity
iecoius show that she was infoimeu of the foimal chaiges against hei she was able to file hei Answei as well as uocuments
eviuencing hei claim anu she was iepiesenteu by a lawyei uuiing the pieheaiing confeience The CA saiu that the failuie of
petitionei anu hei counsel to take full auvantage of the oppoitunity to be heaiu uoes not change the fact that they weie accoiueu such
oppoitunity 0ne may be heaiu not only thiough oial aigument but also thiough pleauings
Issue W0N PET was uepiiveu of substantial uue piocess
Belu No
Ratio

Piesumption of Regulaiity We finu no meiit in petitioneis contention The legal piesumption is that official uuty has been uuly peifoimeu
uoveinment officials aie piesumeu to have iegulaily peifoimeu theii functions anu stiong eviuence is necessaiy to iebut this piesumption
The Nanifestation is insufficient to oveituin this piinciple It contains meie conclusions not statements of fact
Fiauu is nevei piesumeu it must be establisheu by cleai anu convincing eviuence In the piesent case apait fiom the Nanifestation
theie is no cleai eviuence of fiauu While iesponuents counsel uiu not object to the aumission of the Nanifestation the leeway to consiuei
anu assess its piobative value nonetheless lay in the appellate couit
PETs failuie to iaise the issue of misiepiesentation in the oiiginal appeal to CSC
Nistake of counsel binus client In waiving the piesentation of eviuence in a foimal heaiing the counsel of petitionei might have believeu in
the futility of iesisting the chaige thus he opteu to waive hei iight to piesent eviuence That he allegeuly ielieu on iesponuents statement
that she coulu be helu liable only foi the lessei offense of simple negligence was a iisk he took on hei behalf It is juiispiuuentially settleu
that mistakes of counsel as to aigumentation the ielevancy oi iiielevancy of a ceitain eviuence oi the intiouuction theieof aie among
otheis all mistakes of pioceuuie that binu the client
In auministiative cases a faii anu ieasonable oppoitunity to explain ones siue suffices to meet the iequiiements of uue piocess A
foimal oi tiialtype heaiing is not always necessaiy Foi the puipose of asceitaining the tiuth an investigation will be conuucteu uuiing
which technical iules applicable to juuicial pioceeuings neeu not always be auheieu to Anu wheie the paity has the oppoitunity to
appeal oi seek ieconsiueiation of the action oi iuling complaineu of uefects in pioceuuial uue piocess may be cuieu
We agiee with the CA that petitionei was affoiueu uue piocess 0n the foimal chaige against hei she hau ieceiveu sufficient infoimation
which in fact enableu hei to piepaie hei uefense She fileu hei Answei contioveiting the chaiges against hei anu submitteu Affiuavits of
peisonnel in the Assessois 0ffice to suppoit hei claim of innocence A pieheaiing confeience was conuucteu by the legal officei uuiing
which she assisteu by hei counsel hau paiticipateu Finally she was able to appeal the iuling of City Nayoi Bauoy to the CSC anu then
to the CA
Bispositive PETITI0N is BENIEB

Samalio v CA
Petitionei Augusto R Samalio was foimeily an Intelligence 0fficei of the Buieau of Immigiation anu Bepoitation
City Piosecutois 0fficePasig Resolution No iecommenueu that petitionei Samalio be piosecuteu foi the ciimes of
Robbeiy anu violation of Section of the Immigiation Law befoie the Sanuiganbayan
Act x x x that on Febiuaiy Ns Weng Sai Qin aiiiveu at the NAIA fiom Saipan While waiting foi hei tuin at the aiiival
immigiation countei hei passpoit was examineu by Immigiation 0fficei }uliet Pajaiillaga Noting that Ns Weng a Chinese was
holuing a 0iuguayan passpoit Ns Pajaiillaga suspecteu that the foimeis passpoit was fake Ns Weng was taken out of the queue anu
biought to Responuent who was the uuty intelligence officei Ns Weng who coulu only speak in Chinese askeu iesponuent by sign
language that she wanteu to meet a fiienu who was waiting at the NAIA aiiival aiea Responuent appioveu the iequest anu
accompanieu Ns Weng to the aiiival aiea Theieaftei Responuent with Ns Weng anu hei male fiienu in tow ietuineu to the
immigiation aiea While insiue the office of Responuent Ns Weng askeu that hei passpoit be ietuineu Sensing a uemanu foi money in
exchange foi hei passpoit Ns Weng flasheu in fiont of Responuent The money was giabbeu by Responuent Shoitly hei
passpoit was ietuineu ans sic she was alloweu to leave When Ns Weng checkeu hei passpoit latei she uiscoveieu that it uiu not
beai an immigiation aiiival stamp Theieaftei Ns Weng complaineu against Responuent
BIB Commissionei Respicio commenceu an auministiative case thiough a Peisonnel 0iuei against petitionei Augusto R Samalio foi
violation of CSNC No Rule Section foi uishonesty oppiession misconuuct uisgiaceful anu immoial conuuct inefficiency anu
incompetence in the peifoimance of official uuties violation of ieasonable office iules anu iegulations anu conuuct piejuuicial to the best inteiest
of the seivice iequiiing petitionei to submit his answei to the chaiges togethei with suppoiting statements anu uocuments anu whethei oi not
he elects a foimal investigation if his answei is not consiueieu satisfactoiy
In the same Peisonnel 0iuei Samalio was pieventively suspenueu foi a peiiou of ninety uays
Latei on petitionei submitteu an answei uenying the chaiges anu expiessly electing a foimal investigation if such answei be not founu to be
satisfactoiy The answei was founu to be unsatisfactoiy so the case was set foi foimal heaiing befoie the Boaiu of Biscipline of BIB
BIB Acting Commissionei Ramon } Liwag issueu the uecision finuing Augusto R Samalio guilty of the chaiges anu was oiueieu uismisseu fiom
seivice
In the st Inuoisement foimei }ustice Secietaiy Teofisto T uuingona }i confiimeu the penalty of uismissal fiom seivice of Augusto R Samalio
Soon aftei the Notion foi Reconsiueiation was uenieu in a Resolution uateu }une
Buiing the penuency of the aumin case Samalio was convicteu in SB Ciiminal Case of the Ciime of Robbeiy Samalio uiu not appeal but he was
gianteu piobation of yeais by SB
CSC CA affiimeu
Issue
W0N PET was uepiiveu of uue piocess Bec As PET alleges no witness oi eviuence was piesenteu against him that the CA eiieu in the
inteipietation of Section Rule of the Rules of Couit anu that theie was no heaiing conuucteu on his case
W0N PETs contention ieliance on the case of Baclayon v Nutia is applicable giant of piobation suspenueu the imposition not only of the
piincipal penalties but of the accessoiy penalties as well
Belu
No
Yes Bis contentions aie misplaceu
Ratio

Becision baseu on substantial eviuence The CSC uecision anu iesolution which uphelu the iesolution of the Secietaiy of }ustice confiiming the
uecision of the Commissionei of the BIB aie suppoiteu by substantial eviuence The CSC as well as the Secietaiy of }ustice anu the Commissionei
of the BIB ueciueu the case on the basis of the pleauings anu papeis submitteu by the paities anu ielieu on the iecoius of the pioceeuings taken
In paiticulai the uecision was baseu on the ciiminal complaint fileu by Weng Sai Qin against petitionei befoie the City Piosecutois 0ffice of
Pasay City as well as Resolution No uateu Febiuaiy of the same office iecommenuing the piosecution of petitionei at the
Sanuiganbayan foi the ciimes of iobbeiy anu violation of Section of the Immigiation Law
With iegaiu to application of RoC Foi Section Rule to apply the following iequisites must be satisfieu a the witness is ueau oi unable
to testify b his testimony oi ueposition was given in a foimei case oi pioceeuing juuicial oi auministiative between the same paities oi those
iepiesenting the same inteiests c the foimei case involveu the same subject as that in the piesent case although on uiffeient causes of action
u the issue testifieu to by the witness in the foimei tiial is the same issue involveu in the piesent case anu e the auveise paity hau an
oppoitunity to ciossexamine the witness in the foimei case
Weng Sai Qin was unable to testify in the auministiative pioceeuings befoie the BIB because she left the countiy on Febiuaiy oi even
befoie the auministiative complaint against petitionei was instituteu Petitionei uoes not ueny that the testimony of Weng Sai Qin was given in
Sanuiganbayan Ciiminal Case No a case which spiang fiom the infoimation fileu puisuant to Resolution No uateu Febiuaiy
of the City Piosecutois 0ffice of Pasay City the veiy same iesolution useu by Commissionei Respicio as basis foi filing the auministiative
complaint Bence the issue testifieu to by Weng Sai Qin in Sanuiganbayan Ciiminal Case No was the same issue in the auministiative case
that is whethei petitionei extoiteu money fiom Weng Sai Qin Petitionei also hau the oppoitunity to face anu ciossexamine his accusei Weng Sai
Qin anu to uefenu anu vinuicate his cause befoie the Sanuiganbayan Cleaily all the iequisites foi the piopei application of the iule on foimei
testimony as embouieu in Section Rule weie satisfieu Thus the CSC anu the Secietaiy of }ustice committeu no eiioi when they applieu it
anu took cognizance of the foimei testimony of Weng Sai Qin in Sanuiganbayan Ciiminal Case No wheie petitionei was convicteu
0n R0C being applicable to aumin cases The piovisions of the Rules of Couit may be applieu suppletoiily to the iules of pioceuuie of
auministiative bouies exeicising quasijuuicial poweis unless otheiwise pioviueu by law oi the iules of pioceuuie of the auministiative agency
conceineu The Rules of Couit which aie meant to secuie to eveiy litigant the aujective phase of uue piocess of law may be applieu to
pioceeuings befoie an auministiative bouy with quasijuuicial poweis in the absence of uiffeient anu valiu statutoiy oi auministiative piovisions
piesciibing the giounu iules foi the investigation heaiing anu aujuuication of cases befoie it
Fuithei auministiative bouies aie not bounu by the technical niceties of law anu pioceuuie anu the iules obtaining in couits of law
The 0nifoim Rules of Pioceuuie in the Conuuct of Auministiative Investigations in the CSC which weie applicable to petitioneis case pioviueu
that auministiative investigations shall be conuucteu without necessaiily auheiing to technical iules applicable in juuicial pioceeuings
The 0nifoim Rules fuithei pioviueu that eviuence having mateiiality anu ielevance to the auministiative case shall be accepteu
Application Not only was petitioneis objection to the application of Section Rule a technicality that coulu be uisiegaiueu the testimony
of Weng Sai Qin in Sanuiganbayan Ciiminal Case No was also mateiial anu ielevant to the auministiative case Bence the CSC was coiiect
in applying Section Rule when it took cognizance of the foimei testimony of Weng Sai Qin in the afoiementioneu ciiminal case
Bue piocess in an auministiative context uoes not iequiie tiialtype pioceeuings similai to those in couits of justice Wheie oppoitunity to be
heaiu eithei thiough oial aiguments oi thiough pleauings is accoiueu theie is no uenial of pioceuuial uue piocess The stanuaiu of uue piocess
that must be met in auministiative tiibunals allows a ceitain uegiee of latituue as long as faiiness is not ignoieu In othei woius it is not legally
objectionable foi being violative of uue piocess foi an auministiative agency to iesolve a case baseu solely on position papeis afiuavits oi
uocumentaiy eviuence submitteu by the paities as affiuavits of witnesses may take the place of theii uiiect testimony
In this case petitionei was heaiu thiough the vaiious pleauings which he fileu with the Boaiu of Biscipline of the BIB when he fileu his answei
anu two motions to uismiss as well as othei motions anu papeis Be was also able to paiticipate in all stages of the auministiative pioceeuing
Be was able to elevate his case to the Secietaiy of }ustice anu subsequently to the CSC by way of appeal

Fiist the Baclayon case is not in point In that case no auministiative complaint was instituteu against the public officei a public school teachei
uuiing the penuency of the ciiminal case against hei anu even aftei hei conviction Theie being no auministiative case instituteu against the
public officei anu no auministiative liability having been imposeu theie was no auministiative sanction that coulu have been suspenueu by the
giant of piobation
Theie was no accessoiy penalty to be suspenueu because theie was no aumin penalty yet when piobation was gianteu
Bispositive Petition BENIEB
Neuina v C0A
The instant petition oiiginateu fiom the auuit conuucteu by iesponuent Commission on Auuit C0A on the cash anu accounts hanuleu by
petitionei in hei official capacity as Nunicipal Tieasuiei of ueneial Naiiano Alvaiez Cavite
In the }oint Affiuavits of the Auuit Team they hau examineu petitioneis financial iecoius coveiing August to Septembei anu
uiscoveieu a total cash shoitage in the aggiegate amount of P They thus uiiecteu petitionei to immeuiately iestitute the shoitage
within houis fiom ieceipt of the uemanu lettei but petitionei allegeuly faileu to comply The state auuitois submitteu a iepoit to the Piovincial
Auuitois 0ffice anu iecommenueu the ielief of petitionei fiom hei post as municipal tieasuiei anu the filing of ciiminal chaiges against hei
C0A iepiesenteu by the afoiementioneu state auuitois fileu an auministiative case befoie the 0ffice of the Beputy 0mbuusman foi Luzon
chaiging petitionei with giave misconuuct anu uishonesty
In a Becision uateu Novembei Beputy 0mbuusman victoi C Feinanuez appioveu the iecommenuation of the uiaft Investigation anu
Piosecution 0fficei to uismiss petitionei fiom seivice baseu on the existence of substantial eviuence of a uisciepancy in petitioneis account
totaling P
Beputy 0mbuusman uenieu PETs NR twice

nu
NR Petitionei sought ieconsiueiation on giounus of newly uiscoveieu anu mateiial eviuence anu giave eiiois of fact anuoi law
piejuuicial to hei own inteiest The puipoiteu newly uiscoveieu eviuence consisteu of petitioneis iequest foi ieconsiueiation of the
auuit iepoit fileu anu still penuing befoie the office of the auuit team heau heiein iesponuent Nawak anu letteis sent by petitioneis
counsel to the piovincial auuitoi of Cavite questioning the auuit anu iequesting a ieauuit of petitioneis accounts
Petitionei elevateu the mattei to the Couit of Appeals via a Petition foi Review questioning the uenial of hei iequest foi a foimal
investigation the penalty of uismissal anu the sufficiency of the eviuence against hei
CA
petitionei was not entitleu to a foimal investigation anu it affiimeu the ueputy ombuusmans factual finuing that petitionei was guilty of
giave misconuuct anu uishonesty
Issue
W0N PET was uepiiveu of hei iight to uue piocess N0
a Contentions PET insists that she is entitleu to a foimal investigation citing the Auministiative Coue of Book v Title I Subtitle A
Section anu 0n the othei hanu in suppoit of its aigument that the piopiiety of conuucting a foimal investigation iests on
the sounu uiscietion of the heaiing officei iesponuent C0A thiough the 0ffice of the Solicitoi ueneial 0Su ielies on Auministiative 0iuei
No as amenueu by Auministiative 0iuei No Rule III Section goveining the pioceuuie in auministiative cases fileu befoie the
0ffice of the 0mbuusman

W0N PETs guilt foi giave misconuuct anu uishonesty is suppoiteu by substantial eviuence
Ratio

Auministiative 0iuei No as amenueu by Auministiative 0iuei No paiticulaily goveins the pioceuuie in auministiative pioceeuings
befoie the 0ffice of the 0mbuusman
0n the othei hanu the piovisions in the Auministiative Coue citeu by petitionei in suppoit of hei theoiy that she is entitleu to a foimal
investigation apply only to auministiative cases fileu befoie the Civil Seivice Commission CSC
The auministiative complaint against petitionei was fileu befoie the 0ffice of the 0mbuusman suggesting that a uiffeient set of pioceuuial iules
govein Anu iightly so the Beputy 0mbuusman applieu the piovisions of Rules of Pioceuuie of the 0ffice of the 0mbuusman in iuling that the
pieiogative to elect a foimal investigation peitains to the heaiing officei anu not to petitionei
0n vaiious occasions the Couit has iuleu on the piimacy of special laws anu of theii implementing iegulations ovei the Auministiative Coue
of in settling contioveisies specifically subject of these special laws Foi instance in Bon }oson v Exec Sec Toiies the Couit helu that
the Local uoveinment Coue of the Rules anu Regulations Implementing the Local uoveinment Coue of anu Auministiative 0iuei No
A0 No govein auministiative uisciplinaiy pioceeuings against elective local officials wheieas the Rules of Couit anu the
Auministiative Coue of apply in a suppletoiy chaiactei to all matteis not pioviueu in A0 No The afoiesaiu iuling is baseu on the
piinciple of statutoiy constiuction that wheie theie aie two statutes applicable to a paiticulai case that which is specially intenueu foi the saiu
case must pievail
It is a piinciple in statutoiy constiuction that wheie theie aie two statutes that apply to a paiticulai case that which was specially uesigneu foi
the saiu case must pievail ovei the othei In the instant case the acts attiibuteu to petitionei coulu have been the subject of auministiative
uisciplinaiy pioceeuings befoie the 0ffice of the Piesiuent unuei the Local uoveinment Coue oi befoie the 0ffice of the 0mbuusman unuei the
0mbuusman Act Consiueiing howevei that petitionei was chaigeu unuei the 0mbuusman Act it is this law alone which shoulu govein his
case
Thus as between the Auministiative Coue of anu Auministiative 0iuei No as amenueu issueu by the 0ffice of the 0mbuusman the
lattei goveins in this case which involves an auministiative complaint fileu with the 0ffice of the 0mbuusman anu which iaises the question of
whethei petitionei is entitleu to a foimal investigation as a mattei of iight
Even assuming the Auministiative Coue is applicable still theie is a foimiuable hinuiance to petitioneis piayei foi a foimal investigation The
iecoius show that petitionei sought a ieinvestigation only as an afteithought that is aftei the ueputy ombuusman hau alieauy ienueieu a
uecision on the auministiative complaint The ieinvestigation shoulu have been iequesteu at the fiist oppoitunity but uefinitely befoie the
ienuition of a uecision
As coiiectly pointeu out by the 0Su the uenial of petitioneis iequest foi a foimal investigation is not tantamount to a uenial of hei iight to
uue piocess Petitionei was iequiieu to file a counteiaffiuavit anu position papei anu latei on was given a chance to file two motions foi
ieconsiueiation of the uecision of the ueputy ombuusman The essence of uue piocess in auministiative pioceeuings is the oppoitunity to explain
ones siue oi seek a ieconsiueiation of the action oi iuling complaineu of As long as the paities aie given the oppoitunity to be heaiu befoie
juugment is ienueieu the uemanus of uue piocess aie sufficiently met
Bispositive PETITI0N is BENIEB

Bomingo v Rayala
Na Louiues T Bomingo Bomingo then Stenogiaphic Repoitei III at the NLRC fileu a Complaint foi sexual haiassment against Rayala befoie
Secietaiy Bienveniuo Laguesma of the Bepaitment of Laboi anu Employment B0LE
Bomingo executeu an Affiuavit naiiating the inciuences of sexual haiassment complaineu of thus
Sa simula ay pabulong na sinasabihan lang ako ni Chaiiman Rayala ng mga salitang Lot gumaganua ka yata
Touching squeezing hei shouluei
uave hei money Confesseu to hei Asking hei peisonal stuff
Asking hei intimate stuff
Looking at hei peiveiteuly
Touching hei inappiopiiately
0pon ieceipt of the Complaint the B0LE Secietaiy iefeiieu the Complaint to the 0P Rayala being a piesiuential appointee The 0P thiough then
Executive Secietaiy Ronaluo Zamoia oiueieu Secietaiy Laguesma to investigate the allegations in the Complaint anu cieate a committee foi such
puipose
The Committee heaiu the paities anu ieceiveu theii iespective eviuence 0n Naich the Committee submitteu its iepoit anu
iecommenuation to Secietaiy Laguesma It founu Rayala guilty of the offense chaigeu anu iecommenueu the imposition of the minimum penalty
pioviueu unuei A0 which it eiioneously stateu as suspension foi six months
PET appealeu to 0P Benieu
CA Bismisseu Rayalas PETITI0N
NR by PET New Becision ACC0RBINuLY the Becision uateu Becembei is N0BIFIEB to the effect that the penalty of uismissal is
BELETEB anu insteau the penalty of suspension fiom seivice foi the maximum peiiou of one yeai is BEREBY INP0SEB upon the petitionei
The iest of the challengeu uecision stanus
IssueBelu
Was theie sexual haiiassment YES
Whethei Rayalas iight to uue piocess was violateu N0
a Be accuses the Committee on Becoium of iailioauing his tiial foi violation of RA Be also scoieu the 0Ps uecision finuing him guilty of
uisgiaceful anu immoial conuuct unuei the Reviseu Auministiative Coue anu not foi violation of RA Consiueiing that he was not tiieu
foi uisgiaceful anu immoial conuuct he aigues that the veiuict is a sham anu total nullity
Ratio

Factual finuings binuing on SC That Rayala committeu the acts complaineu of anu was guilty of sexual haiassment is theiefoie the common
factual finuing of not just one but thiee inuepenuent bouies the Committee the 0P anu the CA It shoulu be iemembeieu that when suppoiteu by
substantial eviuence factual finuings maue by quasijuuicial anu auministiative bouies aie accoiueu gieat iespect anu even finality by the
couits The piinciple theiefoie uictates that such finuings shoulu binu us

We holu that Rayala was piopeily accoiueu uue piocess
In auministiative pioceeuings uue piocess has been iecognizeu to incluue the following the iight to actual oi constiuctive notice of the
institution of pioceeuings which may affect a iesponuents legal iights a ieal oppoitunity to be heaiu peisonally oi with the assistance of
counsel to piesent witnesses anu eviuence in ones favoi anu to uefenu ones iights a tiibunal vesteu with competent juiisuiction anu so
constituteu as to affoiu a peison chaigeu auministiatively a ieasonable guaiantee of honesty as well as impaitiality anu a finuing by saiu
tiibunal which is suppoiteu by substantial eviuence submitteu foi consiueiation uuiing the heaiing oi containeu in the iecoius oi maue known to
the paities affecteu
The iecoius of the case inuicate that Rayala was affoiueu all these pioceuuial uue piocess safeguaius Although in the beginning he questioneu
the authoiity of the Committee to tiy him he appeaieu peisonally anu with counsel anu paiticipateu in the pioceeuings
The uesignation of the case is not contiolling It is notewoithy that unuei A0 sexual haiassment amounts to uisgiaceful anu immoial
conuuct Thus any finuing of liability foi sexual haiassment may also be the basis of culpability foi uisgiaceful anu immoial conuuct

AZ Ainaiz Realty v 0P
Petitionei A Z Ainaiz Realty Inc fileu a Petition foi Exclusion fiom the Compiehensive Agiaiian Refoim Piogiam CARP coveiage uateu Apiil
befoie the Regional Biiectoi of the Bepaitment of Agiaiian Refoim BAR Region v ovei thiee paicels of lanu situateu at Baiangay
Asiu Sinalugan Nasbate Nasbate on the basis that the saiu paicels of lanu hau been uevoteu to cattleianching puiposes since time
immemoiial saiu lanus aie not tenanteu anu saiu lanus have moie than slopes
BAR Reg Bii uenieu petition In uenying the petition the BAR Regional Biiectoi concluueu among othei things that the piopeities weie not
uiiectly actually anu exclusively useu foi pastuie baseu on the uocuments piesenteu theie was no cleai anu convincing pioof that petitionei
intenueu oi manifesteu its intention of maintaining the whole aiea foi cattle ianching petitionei solu its entiie heiu of cattle to Nonteiey
Faims Coipoiation when the lattei leaseu the piopeity fiom the petitionei the peace anu oiuei situation uue to the piesence of NPA iebels in
Nasbate at that time was not the piimaiy ieason foi the uiscontinuance of any business activity in the aiea consiueiing that it uiu not pievent
Nonteiey fiom leasing the piopeity anu its subsequent offei to ienew the contiact of lease aftei its teimination anu the petitionei uoes not
have the authoiity fiom the cuiient ownei of the piopeity pieviously coveieu by TCT to file the petition in its behalf
Petitionei then appealeu the 0iuei to the Secietaiy of Agiaiian Refoim Petitionei also fileu two sepaiate motions foi oculai inspections uateu
Apiil anu August avvphi 0n 0ctobei the Secietaiy of Agiaiian Refoim issueu an 0iuei uismissing the appeal foi lack
of meiit
Aggiieveu petitionei sought iecouise befoie the 0ffice of the Piesiuent 0P 0n Septembei the 0P ienueieu a Becision uismissing the
appeal
Petitionei fileu a Notion foi Reconsiueiation with Eainest Piayei foi Reinvestigation oi 0culai Inspection with 0P which was uenieu in the
Resolution uateu 0ctobei
CA uenieu PETs petition
Issue W0N PET was not accoiueu the iequisite uue piocess
Petitionei aigues that it was not accoiueu the oppoitunity to piesent its case It insists that it was uenieu uue piocess when without any
heaiing the BAR Regional Biiectoi uenieu its petition foi exclusion Also petitionei contenus that it shoulu have been alloweu to paiticipate
in the oculai inspection conuucteu by the BAR anu its iequest foi oculai inspection shoulu have been gianteu by the foimei Being the ownei
of the subject piopeities it knows its topogiaphy bounuaiy anu othei chaiacteiistics The piesence of its authoiizeu iepiesentative is
necessaiy to insuie that the BAR conuucteu the oculai examination on the subject piopeities oi actually conuucteu an oculai inspection
Belu No
Ratio
Bue piocess as a constitutional piecept uoes not always anu in all situations iequiie a tiialtype pioceeuing Litigants may be heaiu thiough
pleauings wiitten explanations position papeis memoianua oi oial aiguments The stanuaiu of uue piocess that must be met in
auministiative tiibunals allows a ceitain uegiee of latituue as long as faiiness is not ignoieu It is theiefoie not legally objectionable foi being
violative of uue piocess foi an auministiative agency to iesolve a case baseu solely on position papeis affiuavits oi uocumentaiy eviuence
submitteu by the paities
Essence of uue piocess is simply an oppoitunity to be heaiu oi as applieu to auministiative pioceeuings an oppoitunity to explain ones siue oi
an oppoitunity to seek foi a ieconsiueiation of the action oi iuling complaineu of Anu any seeming uefect in its obseivance is cuieu by the
filing of a motion foi ieconsiueiation Benial of uue piocess cannot be successfully invokeu by a paity who has hau the oppoitunity to be heaiu on
his motion foi ieconsiueiation 0nuoubteuly the iequiiement of the law was affoiueu to petitionei
Even if no foimal heaiing took place it is not sufficient giounu foi petitionei to claim that uue piocess was not affoiueu it In the piesent case
petitionei was given all the oppoitunity to piove anu establish its claim that the subject piopeities weie excluueu fiom the coveiage of the CARP
Petitionei actively paiticipateu in the pioceeuings by submitting vaiious pleauings anu uocumentaiy eviuence In fact petitionei fileu motions foi
ieconsiueiation in eveiy unfavoiable outcome of its actions in all tieis of the auministiative anu juuicial piocess fiom the 0iuei of the BAR
Regional Biiectoi up to the Becision of the Couit of Appeals
Bispositive Petition is BENIEB

uoss v Lopez

Biief Fact Summaiy Stuuents of the city public school system weie suspenueu fiom school without a heaiing eithei befoie oi shoitly aftei the
suspensions

Synopsis of Rule of Law Stuuents have a legitimate piopeity iight in theii euucation which is piotecteu by the Bue Piocess Clause This iight cannot
be taken away without appiopiiate pioceuuial heaiings

Facts
The 0hio Reviseu Coue allows a school piincipal to suspenu a pupil foi up to uays oi expel him foi misconuuct If the stuuent is expelleu he is
entitleu to heaiing that coulu leau to his ieinstatement Bowevei if the stuuent is just suspenueu theie is no piovision foi a heaiing oi
ieconsiueiation of the suspension The Appellees Lopez anu otheis Appellees weie all suspenueu fiom the Columbus Pubic School System foi
up to uays each without a heaiing
The nine nameu appellees each of whom allegeu that he oi she hau been suspenueu fiom public high school in Columbus foi up to uays
without a heaiing puisuant to fileu an action unuei 0SC against the Columbus Boaiu of Euucation anu vaiious
auministiatois of the CPSS The complaint sought a p ueclaiation that was unconstitutional in that it peimitteu public school
auministiatois to uepiive plaintiffs of theii iights to an euucation without a heaiing of any kinu in violation of the pioceuuial uue piocess
component of the Fouiteenth Amenument
0n the basis of this eviuence the thieejuuge couit ueclaieu that plaintiffs weie uenieu uue piocess of law because they weie suspenueu without
heaiing piioi to suspension oi within a ieasonable time theieaftei anu that 0hio RevCoue Ann anu iegulations issueu
puisuant theieto weie unconstitutional in peimitting such suspensions

Issue Biu the Columbus Public School System violate the Appellees uue piocess iights when it suspenueu each without having a heaiing
At the outset appellants the auministiatois contenu that because theie is no constitutional iight to an euucation at public expense the Bue
Piocess Clause uoes not piotect against expulsions fiom the public school system This position misconceives the natuie of the issue anu is
iefuteu by piioi uecisions The Fouiteenth Amenument foibius the State to uepiive any peison of life libeity oi piopeity without uue
piocess of law
Belu Yes
Ratio
Beie on the basis of state law appellees plainly hau legitimate claims of entitlement to a public euucation 0hio RevCoue Ann anu
anu Supp uiiect local authoiities to pioviue a fiee euucation to all iesiuents between five anu yeais of age anu a
compulsoiy attenuance law iequiies attenuance foi a school yeai of not less than weeks
Baving chosen to extenu the iight to an euucation to people of appellees class geneially 0hio may not withuiaw that iight on giounus of
misconuuct absent funuamentally faii pioceuuies to ueteimine whethei the misconuuct has occuiieu
Among othei things the State is constiaineu to iecognize a stuuents legitimate entitlement to a public euucation as a piopeity inteiest which is
piotecteu by the Bue Piocess Clause anu which may not be taken away foi misconuuct without auheience to the minimum pioceuuies iequiieu
by that Clause
0nce it is ueteimineu that uue piocess applies the question iemains what piocess is uue Noiiissey v Biewei 0S at We tuin to that
question fully p iealizing as oui cases iegulaily uo that the inteipietation anu application of the Bue Piocess Clause aie intensely piactical
matteis anu that the veiy natuie of uue piocess negates any concept of inflexible pioceuuies univeisally applicable to eveiy imaginable
situation
Nullane v Cential Banovei Tiust at a minimum they iequiie that uepiivation of life libeity oi piopeity by aujuuication be pieceueu by notice
anu oppoitunity foi heaiing appiopiiate to the natuie of the case
We uo not believe that school authoiities must be totally fiee fiom notice anu heaiing iequiiements if theii schools aie to opeiate with acceptable
efficiency Stuuents facing tempoiaiy suspension have inteiests qualifying foi piotection of the Bue Piocess Clause anu uue piocess iequiies in
connection with a suspension of uays oi less that the stuuent be given oial oi wiitten notice of the chaiges against him anu if he uenies them
an explanation of the eviuence the authoiities have anu an oppoitunity to piesent his siue of the stoiy The Clause iequiies at least these
iuuimentaiy piecautions against unfaii oi mistaken finuings of misconuuct anu aibitiaiy exclusion fiom school
Piocess Theie neeu be no uelay between the time notice is given anu the time of the heaiing In the gieat majoiity of cases the uisciplinaiian
may infoimally uiscuss the allegeu misconuuct with the stuuent minutes aftei it has occuiieu We holu only that in being given an oppoitunity to
explain his veision of the facts at this uiscussion the stuuent fiist be tolu what he is accuseu of uoing anu what the basis of the accusation is
Since the heaiing may occui almost immeuiately following the misconuuct it follows that as a geneial iule notice anu heaiing shoulu pieceue
iemoval of the stuuent fiom school We agiee with the Bistiict Couit howevei that theie aie iecuiiing situations in which piioi notice anu
heaiing cannot be insisteu upon Stuuents whose piesence poses a continuing uangei to peisons oi piopeity oi an ongoing thieat of
uisiupting the acauemic piocess may be immeuiately iemoveu fiom school In such cases the necessaiy notice anu iuuimentaiy heaiing
shoulu follow p as soon as piacticable as the Bistiict Couit inuicateu
Ratio Infoimeu uecision 0n the othei hanu iequiiing effective notice anu infoimal heaiing peimitting the stuuent to give his veision of the
events will pioviue a meaningful heuge against eiioneous action At least the uisciplinaiian will be aleiteu to the existence of uisputes about facts
anu aiguments p about cause anu effect Be may then ueteimine himself to summon the accusei peimit ciossexamination anu allow the
stuuent to piesent his own witnesses In moie uifficult cases he may peimit counsel In any event his uiscietion will be moie infoimeu anu we
think the iisk of eiioi substantially ieuuceu
BissentThe majoiity has cieateu a new constitutional iight foi school ageu chiluien They cannot be suspenueu without a heaiing This case iemoves
the contiol of the classioom fiom the tiaineu euucational auministiatois anu imposes juuicial inteifeience
Bispositive }uugment of BC is affiimeu

Natthews v Eluiiuge

Facts
ueoige Eluiiuge who hau oiiginally been ueemeu uisableu uue to chionic anxiety anu back stiain was infoimeu by lettei that his uisability status
was enuing anu that his benefits woulu be teiminateu Social Secuiity Auministiation pioceuuies pioviueu foi ample notification anu an
eviuentiaiy heaiing befoie a final ueteimination was maue but Eluiiuges benefits weie cut off until that heaiing coulu take place Eluiiuge
challengeu the teimination of his benefits without such a heaiing
A few yeais aftei iesponuent was fiist awaiueu uisability benefits he ieceiveu anu completeu a questionnaiie fiom the monitoiing state agency
Aftei consiueiing the infoimation containeu theiein anu obtaining iepoits fiom his uoctoi anu an inuepenuent meuical consultant the agency
wiote iesponuent that it hau tentatively ueteimineu that his uisability hau ceaseu in Nay anu auviseu him that he might iequest a
ieasonable time to fuinish auuitional infoimation In a ieply lettei iesponuent uisputeu one chaiacteiization of his meuical conuition anu
inuicateu that the agency hau enough eviuence to establish his uisability The agency then maue its final ueteimination ieaffiiming its tentative
uecision This ueteimination was accepteu by the SSA which notifieu iesponuent in }uly that his benefits woulu enu aftei that month anu that he
hau a iight to state agency ieconsiueiation within six months
Insteau of iequesting ieconsiueiation Eluiiuge commenceu this action challenging the constitutional valiuity of the auministiative pioceuuies
establisheu by the Secietaiy of Bealth Euucation anu Welfaie foi assessing whethei theie exists a continuing uisability Be sought an immeuiate
ieinstatement of benefits penuing a heaiing on the issue of his uisability
BC Eluiigues iight to pioceuuial uue piocess violateu
Issue Biu the lack of an eviuentiaiy heaiing piioi to the teimination of uisability benefits violate the Bue Piocess Clause of the Fifth Amenument
The uispute centeis upon what piocess is uue piioi to the initial teimination of benefits penuing ieview
In suppoit of his contention that uue piocess iequiies a pieteimination heaiing Eluiiuge ielieu exclusively upon this Couits uecision in
uolubeig v Kelly 0 S which establisheu a iight to an eviuentiaiy heaiing piioi to teimination of welfaie benefits
Rathei the Secietaiy contenus that the existing auministiative pioceuuies uetaileu below pioviue all the piocess that is constitutionally
uue befoie a iecipient can be uepiiveu of that inteiest
Belu No
Ratio Teimination of social secuiity benefits uoes not iequiie a pieteimination heaiing
Pioceuuial uue piocess imposes constiaints on goveinmental uecisions which uepiive inuiviuuals of libeity oi piopeity inteiests within the
meaning of the Bue Piocess Clause of the Fifth oi Fouiteenth Amenument The Secietaiy uoes not contenu that pioceuuial uue piocess is
inapplicable to teiminations of Social Secuiity uisability benefits Be iecognizes as has been implicit in oui piioi uecisions that the inteiest of an
inuiviuual in continueu ieceipt of these benefits is a statutoiily cieateu piopeity inteiest piotecteu by the Fifth Amenument
Noie piecisely oui piioi uecisions inuicate that iuentification of the specific uictates of uue piocess geneially iequiies consiueiation of thiee
uistinct factois fiist the piivate inteiest that will be affecteu by the official action seconu the iisk of an eiioneous uepiivation of such inteiest
thiough the pioceuuies useu anu the piobable value if any of auuitional oi substitute pioceuuial safeguaius anu finally the uoveinments
inteiest incluuing the function involveu anu the fiscal anu auministiative buiuens that the auuitional oi substitute pioceuuial iequiiement woulu
entail
Bespite the elaboiate chaiactei of the auministiative pioceuuies pioviueu by the Secietaiy the couits below helu them to be constitutionally
inauequate concluuing that uue piocess iequiies an eviuentiaiy heaiing piioi to teimination In light of the piivate anu goveinmental inteiests at
stake heie anu the natuie of the existing pioceuuies we think this was eiioi
uolubeig N0T applicable Eligibility foi uisability benefits in contiast is not baseu upon financial neeu Footnote Inueeu it is wholly
unielateu to the woikeis income oi suppoit fiom many othei souices such as eainings of othei family membeis woikmens compensation
awaius Footnote toit claims awaius sayings piivate insuiance public oi piivate pensions veteians benefits foou stamps public
assistance oi the many othei impoitant piogiams both public anu piivate which contain piovisions foi uisability payments affecting a
substantial poition of the woikfoice
As uolubeig illustiates the uegiee of potential uepiivation that may be cieateu by a paiticulai uecision is a factoi to be consiueieu in assessing
the valiuity of any auministiative uecisionmaking piocess Cf Noiiissey v Biewei 0 S The potential uepiivation heie is
geneially likely to be less than in uolubeig although the uegiee of uiffeience can be oveistateu As the Bistiict Couit emphasizeu to iemain
eligible foi benefits a iecipient must be unable to engage in substantial gainful activity 0SC FSupp at Thus in contiast to
the uischaigeu feueial employee in Ainett theie is little possibility that the teiminateu iecipient will be able to finu even tempoiaiy employment
to amelioiate the inteiim loss Still the uisableu woikeis neeu is likely to be less than that of a welfaie iecipient In auuition to the possibility of
access to piivate iesouices othei foims of goveinment assistance will become available wheie the teimination of uisability benefits places a
woikei oi his family below the subsistence level
An auuitional factoi to be consiueieu heie is the faiiness anu ieliability of the existing pieteimination pioceuuies anu the piobable value if any
of auuitional pioceuuial safeguaius Cential to the evaluation of any auministiative piocess is the natuie of the ielevant inquiiy In oiuei to
iemain eligible foi benefits the uisableu woikei must uemonstiate by means of meuically acceptable clinical anu laboiatoiy uiagnostic
techniques 0SC u that he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by ieason of any meuically ueteiminable
physical oi mental impaiiment uA emphasis supplieu In shoit a meuical assessment of the woikeis physical oi mental
conuition is iequiieu This is a moie shaiply focuseu anu easily uocumenteu uecision than the typical ueteimination of welfaie entitlement In the
lattei case a wiue vaiiety of infoimation may be ueemeu ielevant anu issues of witness cieuibility anu veiacity often aie ciitical to the uecision
making piocess By contiast the uecision whethei to uiscontinue uisability benefits will tuin in most cases upon ioutine stanuaiu anu
unbiaseu meuical iepoits by physician specialists Richaiuson v Peiales 0S at 0 S conceining a subject whom they have
peisonally examineu
The uecision in uolubeig also was baseu on the Couits conclusion that wiitten submissions weie an inauequate substitute foi oial piesentation
because they uiu not pioviue an effective means foi the iecipient to communicate his case to the uecisionmakei Wiitten submissions weie
vieweu as an uniealistic option foi most iecipients lackeu the euucational attainment necessaiy to wiite effectively anu coulu not affoiu
piofessional assistance In auuition such submissions woulu not pioviue the flexibility of oial piesentations oi peimit the iecipient to molu his
aigument to the issues the uecisionmakei appeais to iegaiu as impoitant
A fuithei safeguaiu against mistake is the policy of allowing the uisability iecipients iepiesentative full access to all infoimation ielieu upon by
the state agency In auuition piioi to the cutoff of benefits the agency infoims the iecipient of its tentative assessment the ieasons theiefoi anu
pioviues a summaiy of the eviuence that it consiueis most ielevant 0ppoitunity is then affoiueu the iecipient to submit auuitional eviuence oi
aiguments enabling him to challenge uiiectly the accuiacy of infoimation in his file as well as the coiiectness of the agencys tentative
conclusions These pioceuuies again as contiasteu with those befoie the Couit in uolubeig enable the iecipient to molu his aigument to
iesponu to the piecise issues which the uecisionmakei iegaius as ciucial
In stiiking the appiopiiate uue piocess balance the final factoi to be assesseu is the public inteiest This incluues the auministiative buiuen anu
othei societal costs that woulu be associateu with iequiiing as a mattei of constitutional iight an eviuentiaiy heaiing upon uemanu in all cases
piioi to the teimination of uisability benefits The most visible buiuen woulu be the inciemental cost iesulting fiom the incieaseu numbei of
heaiings anu the expense of pioviuing benefits to ineligible iecipients penuing uecision B0T Financial cost alone is not a contiolling weight in
ueteimining whethei uue piocess iequiies a paiticulai pioceuuial safeguaiu piioi to some auministiative uecision But the uoveinments
inteiest anu hence that of the public in conseiving scaice fiscal anu auministiative iesouices is a factoi that must be weigheu At some point the
benefit of an auuitional safeguaiu to the inuiviuual affecteu by the auministiative action anu to society in teims of incieaseu assuiance that the
action is just may be outweigheu by the cost Significantly the cost of piotecting those whom the pieliminaiy auministiative piocess has
iuentifieu as likely to be founu unueseiving may in the enu come out of the pockets of the ueseiving since iesouices available foi any paiticulai
piogiam of social welfaie aie not unlimiteu See Fiienuly supia 0PaLRev at