Dear Sir,

Respectfully submitted is the Daily Journal of Panyerong Pulis @ Ur Serbis 24/7 from 12
2000H to 13 0800H June 2016, Case Digest, and OD Report as Duty Legal Adviser.
12 2000H to 13 0800H June 2016
NO.

1.

TIME

12
June

MESSAGES, INCIDENTS, ORDER, ETC

Assumed duties and responsibilities as Duty

Legal Officer, of Panyerong Pulis @ Ur
Serbis 24/7.

ACTION TAKEN
Call AC, LAD, email Command
Group

2000H
2.

2400H

Continue monitoring.

3.

0200H

Continue monitoring.

4.

0400H

Negative query.

13
5.

June
0800H

Properly turned-over to the incoming Duty

Legal Officer.
PSINSP ANNA LUISA CENTINO

PCINSP DANTE A ARINO

DUTY LEGAL ADVISER

CHECKLIST FOR OFFICER OF THE DAY (OD)

1. Assumption of my duty as Officer of the Day (OD).
2. I inspected the posted guards from 2000H June 12, 2016 with the following results:
a. LS Lobby
1) Time of Inspection 0200H Name of posted guard: PO3 Garry V Viernes.

2) List the members of the guard present and absent at the area during the time of
inspection.

PRESENT

ABSENT

PO3 Garry V Viernes

None

b. PanyerongPulis @ Ur Serbis 24/7

1) Monitoring. Name of posted guard: PO3 Garry V Viernes.
2) List the members of the guard present and absent at the area during the

time

of inspection.

PRESENT

ABSENT

PO3 Garry V Viernes

None

c. LS Parking Space
Time of inspection 02000H, Name of posted guard PO3 Garry V Viernes.
d. LS Library/Records Section
Time of inspections 02000H, Name of posted guard PO3 Garry V Viernes.

3. I stayed at Panyerong Pulis @ Ur Serbis 24/7 to supervise the strict implementation and
enforcement of security procedures from 12 02000H - 13 0800H June 2016
4. I supervised the strict implementation of energy conservation policy and ensured that
all lights and air-conditioned units at LS building are being PUT-OFF at about 02000H.

5. Comments and observation. (Include significant events and matters involving LS

building security and cleanliness, the proper uniform and equipment of sentinels on duty and
their efficiency.
(Negative for the period)

6. I quit my post at about 0800H June 13, 2016.

PSI CAMILO N DANAO JR

DUTY LEGAL ADVISER

Case Digest (Administrative Due Process: Applicable Rules in OMB Proceedings)

Lorna A Medina, Petitioner vs. Commission on Audit represented by the Audit
Team of Eufrocina Mawak, Susan Pallerna and Ma. Dolores Tepora, Respondents
GR No. 176478, February 4, 2008
En Banc
This case is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure seeking reversal of CA Decision and Resolution affirming the dismissal of
petitioner Lorna A Medina for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty issued by the Office of
the Ombudsman.
Petitioner Medina is the former Municipal Treasurer of General Mariano Alvarez,
Cavite. During an audit by the COA audit team from the Provincial Auditors Office of
Cavite, it was found out that she incurred a cash shortage of Php 4,080,631.36 for the
period 19 August 1999 to 26 September 2000.
The COA recommended the relief and filing of administrative and criminal
charges against the petitioner. Consequently, Medina was charged before the Office of
the Ombudsman for Luzon.
In her defense, the petitioner raised the following issues:
a. The audit team was not independent and competent;
b. The computation of her accountabilities was overstated and erroneous;
c. The audit team failed to verify such documents as bank reconciliation
statements, general ledgers, and cashbooks presented during the cash count;
d. The documents in support of the audit report was not signed, hence, selfserving;

e. The cash shortage in the amount of Php 379,646,51 under SEF and Trust
Fund as well as the disallowed amount of Php 585,803.37 has no basis as
the same pertained to the previous audit, and thus, could have been excluded
from the computation of the total shortage;
f. The cash amounting to Php 883,952,91 in the form of reimbursement
expense receipts should not have been disallowed because they were
actually received by individual payees;
g. The petitioners cash on hand accountability was overstated because a
collection was not immediately recorded; and
h. The audit team erroneously credited petitioners accounts to another cashier.
On November 8, 2004, the dismissal of the petitioner due to the aforementioned
discrepancy was approved by Deputy Ombudsman Victor Fernandez. The decision
specifically took notice of the petitioners failure to file counter-affidavit and position
paper despite notice.
On November 29, 2004, petitioner filed an urgent motion saying that she filed the
necessary pleading and that the defenses therein alleged be considered in reversing
the OMBs decision.
On January 31, 2005, treating the petitioners motion as a Motion for
Reconsideration, Deputy Ombudsman Fernandez denied the same, citing the absence
of exculpatory statements to contradict the OMBs findings that she misappropriated
public funds.
Petitioner sough reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence and grave
errors on facts and law including a pending request for reconsideration of the audit
report before the office of the audit team. On March 22, 2005, it was denied by Deputy
Ombudsman Fernandez.
The petitioner elevated the matter before the Court of Appeals via a Petition for
Review on the alleged violation of due process including the absence of a formal
hearing. The CA denied the petition, finding that she is not entitled to a formal
investigation; hence the action before the Supreme Court to reverse the CA decision.
The issues for consideration are:
a. Whether the petitioner was deprived of her right to due process;
b. Whether the penalty of dismissal is proper; and
c. Whether the petitioners guilt of grave misconduct and dishonesty is
supported by substantial evidence.
The petitioner stated under Administrative Code of 1987, Book V, Title I, Subtitle
48(2), and (3), she is entitled to formal investigation. On the other hand, COA relied on

Administrative Order No. 7, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, Rule III,
Section 5, as the rule applicable on cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ruling:
The SC opined that Administrative Order No. 7, as amended by Administrative
Order No. 17, Rule III, Section 5, governs the procedure before the Office of the
Ombudsman. It was issued pursuant to the authority vested with the OMB under RA
6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
On the other hand the Administrative Code of 1987, cited by the respondent
applies only on cases filed before the Civil Service Commission. As the case was filed
before the OMB, the Deputy Ombudsman applied the Rules of Procedure of the OMB.
The latter rule states that a formal investigation is a prerogative that rests on the hearing
officer and not with the petitioner.
xxx Thus, as between the Administrative Code of 1987 and Administrative Order
No. 7, as amended, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman, the latter governs in this
case which involves an administrative complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman
and which raises the question of whether petitioner is entitled to a formal investigation
as a matter of right xxxx

Dear Sir,
Respectfully submitted is the Daily Journal of Panyerong Pulis @ Ur Serbis 24/7 from 12
0800H to 12 2000H June 2016, Case Digest, and OD Report as Duty Legal Adviser.

12 0800H to 12 2000H June 2016

NO.

TIME

MESSAGES, INCIDENTS, ORDER, ETC

ACTION TAKEN

1.

12
June

Monitor CP and e-mail of Panyerong Pulis @

Ur Serbis 24/7.

0800H
2.

1200H

Continue monitoring.

3.

1700H

Continue monitoring.

4.

Negative query.
12

5.

June
2000H

Properly turned-over to the incoming Duty

Legal Officer.
PCI DANTE A ARINO.

PSI CAMILO N DANAO JR.

DUTY LEGAL ADVISER

CHECKLIST FOR OFFICER OF THE DAY (OD)

1. Assumption of my duty as Officer of the Day (OD).

2. I inspected the posted guards from 0800H June 12, 2016 with the following results:
a. LS Lobby
1) Time of Inspection 0800H Name of posted guard: PO3 Garry V Viernes.
2) List the members of the guard present and absent at the area during the time of
inspection.

PRESENT

ABSENT

PO3 Garry V Viernes

None

b. PanyerongPulis @ Ur Serbis 24/7

1) Monitoring. Name of posted guard: PO3 Garry V Viernes.
2) List the members of the guard present and absent at the area during the

time

of inspection.

PRESENT

ABSENT

PO3 Garry V Viernes

None

c. LS Parking Space
Time of inspection 0830H, Name of posted guard PO3 Garry V Viernes.
d. LS Library/Records Section
Time of inspections 1100H, Name of posted guard PO3 Garry V Viernes.

3. I stayed at Panyerong Pulis @ Ur Serbis 24/7 to supervise the strict implementation and
enforcement of security procedures from 12 0800H - 12 2000H June 2016
4. I supervised the strict implementation of energy conservation policy and ensured that
all lights and air-conditioned units at LS building are being PUT-OFF at about 1800H.
5. Comments and observation. (Include significant events and matters involving LS
building security and cleanliness, the proper uniform and equipment of sentinels on duty and
their efficiency.
(Negative for the period)

6. I quit my post at about 2000H June 12, 2016.

PSI CAMILO N DANAO JR

DUTY LEGAL ADVISER

Case Digest (June 12, 2016 8AM-8PM- APO Cement Corp vs. Mingson Mining
re Administrative Due Process)

APO CEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. MINGSON MINING INDUSTRIES

CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 206728, November 12, 2014
Facts of the Case:
The instant case arose from a dispute involving the mining claims known as "Allied 1
and 2" and "Lapulapu 31 and 32" (subject mining claims) between petitioner Apo
Cement Corporation (Apocemco) and respondent Mingson Mining Industries
Corporation (Mingson).
For the supposed failure of the old locators to develop and put to productive use the
mineral properties found in the area, Apocemco submitted a Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement (MPSA) proposal on June 19, 1991 before the DENR, essentially seeking to
take over their current holder, Luvimin Cebu Mining Corporation (Luvimin).
On August 18, 1992 and March 2, 1993, the DENR - Central Visayas, Region 7
Office(DENR Regional Office) declared the subject mining claims, among others,
abandoned and open for location to other interested parties, prompting Luvimin to file
an appeal. Similarly, Mingson assailed the aforementioned declarations on the ground
that its own mining claims, i.e., "Yellow Eagle I to VII," overlapped with the subject
mining claims. Particularly, Mingson averred that its "Yellow Eagle IV" claim was
registered on February 7, 1983 and was found to have overlapped with the "Allied 1 and
2" claims, while its "Yellow Eagle III" claim was registered on April 12, 1982 and
overlapped with the "Lapulapu 31 and 32" claims.

In an Order dated March 1, 1995, the DENR Regional Office decreed that portions of
the subject mining claims be awarded to Mingson, considering that said claims have
encroached its Yellow Eagle I to VII claims.
However, upon Apocemcos motion for reconsideration, the DENR Regional Offices
Legal Division issued a Resolution dated September 5, 1995, recommending that the
subject mining claims be awarded, instead, to Apocemco, subject, however, to the
outcome of Luvimins appeal. In an Order dated September 20, 1995, the DENR
Regional Director affirmed the foregoing resolution, but subject tothe review and
concurrence of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Region 7 - Panel of Arbitrators
(POA), considering that pursuant to Section 218 of DENR Department Administrative
Order No. (DAO) 95-23, Series of 1995, the POA has been mandated to resolve, among
others, disputes involving rights to mining areas.
In a Decision dated May 3, 1996, the POA upheld the September 5, 1995 Resolution
and the September 20, 1995 Order, reiterating the findings therein made, without,
however, requiring the parties to file any pleading or setting the matter for hearing.
Aggrieved, Mingson appealed the POAs Decision before the DENR MAB, averring that
the said Decision was not supported by facts and the evidence on record, and that it
was arbitrary and issued with grave abuse of authority. Subsequently, in Mingsons
letter dated August 8, 1996, it claimed denial of due process.
In a Decision dated July 31, 2007, the DENR MAB granted Mingsons appeal and
thereby reversed and set aside the POAs Decision. It found that the POA merely
conducted a review of the case and Mingson, in particular, was not given an opportunity
to be heard, which is repugnant to due process.
Dissatisfied, Apocemco elevated the matter to the CA.
In a Decision dated June 13, 2012, the CA dismissed Apocemcos appeal and sustained
the DENR MABs finding that Mingson was not afforded by the POA its right to due
process, given that none of the applicable procedures found in DENR DAO 95-23 were
followed. As an added ground for dismissal, the CA heldthat Apocemco failed to perfect
its appeal in accordance with the Rules ofCourt, considering that the DENR MAB was
not served a copy of its petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The primordial issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly ordered the
dismissal of Apocemcos appeal.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is devoid of merit.
Sections 223 (on preliminary conference), 224 (on hearing), and 227 (on the
proceedings before the POA), as well as Sections 221 (on due course) and 222 (on
answers) of DENR DAO95-23, or the Implementing Rules of the Philippine Mining Act of
1995, clearly require that the parties involved in mining disputes be given the
opportunity to be heard. These rules which were already in effect during the time the
dispute between the parties arose flesh out the core requirement of due process; thus,
a stark and unjustified contravention of the same would oust the errant tribunal of its
jurisdiction and, in effect, render its decision null and void. As explained in PO2 Montoya
v. Police Director Varilla:
The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights,
courts are ousted from their jurisdiction.1wphi1 The violation of a partys right to due
process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or
disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is
apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of
jurisdiction. (Emphases supplied)
Here, it has been established that the POA proceeded to resolve the present mining
dispute without affording either party any fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard in
violation of the aforementioned provisions of DENR DAO 95-23. Thus, as correctly ruled
by the DENR MAB and later affirmed by the CA, Mingsons due process rights were
violated, thereby rendering the POAs Decision null and void.
In this relation, the Court finds it apt to clarify that the DENR MAB did not err in taking
cognizance of the due process issue. While such issue was not assigned as an error in
Mingsons Appeal dated July 27, 1996, the same was squarely raised in Mingsons
August 8, 1996 letter to the DENR MAB. Given the lack of any formalprocedure on
appeals at that time, the DENR MAB cannot be faulted for considering the letter and the
issues raised therein as part of Mingsons appeal. It must be added that the DENR MAB
is not a court of law but an administrative body; hence, it is not bound by strict rules of
procedure and evidence, and is allowed to use all reasonable means to ascertain the
facts of each case speedily and objectively without resort to technical rules, as in this
case.
Besides, an apparent lack of due process may be raised by a party at any time since
due process is a jurisdictional requisite that all tribunals, whether administrative or
judicial, are duty bound to observe. In Salva v. Valle, the Court pronounced that

"[a]decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at
anytime directly or collaterally by means of a separate action, or by resisting such
decision in any action or proceeding where it is invoked." The Court sees no defensible
reason as to why this principle should not be herein applied.
That being said, and considering too Apocemcos failure to comply with Sections 5 and
7, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court in the proceedings before the appellate court, the
instant petition is hereby denied and the rulings of the CA are affirmed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 13, 2012 and the
Resolution dated April 23, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100456 are
hereby AFFIRMED.

Digested by:
PSI Camilo N Danao Jr.
Duty Legal Adviser, Panyerong Pulis @ Ur serbis 24/7