[ G.R. No.

193773, April 02, 2013 ]

TERESITA L. SALVA, PETITIONER, VS. FLAVIANA M. VALLE, RESPONDENT. DE
VILLARAMA, !R., !." Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the Decision[1] dated August 25, 2010 of the Court of Appeals CA! in CA"#$R$ %& 'o$ 10()22$ *he facts leading to the present controvers+, as su,,ari-ed .+ the CA/ 0n 1une 11, 2004, petitioner *eresita 2$ %alva petitioner hereafter!, &resident of &alawan %tate 3niversit+ &%3!, issued 0ffice 0rder 'o$ 0)1 reassigning four 4! &%3 facult+ ,e,.ers of the College of Arts and 4u,anities to various 56tra,ural %tudies Centers$ %he assigned respondent 7laviana 8$ 9alle respondent hereafter! at :roo;e<s &oint, &alawan$ =n a letter dated 1une 1>, 2004, respondent infor,ed petitioner that her net ta;e ho,e pa+ is onl+ &(>?$)) per ,onth and that she needed financial assistance in the total a,ount of &5,100$00 to support her sta+ at :roo;e<s &oint$ &ending the approval of her re@uest, respondent as;ed that she .e allowed to report to the ,ain ca,pus$ :ut, it appears that as earl+ as respondent<s receipt of the reassign,ent order, her teaching load or su.Aects in the ,ain ca,pus were alread+ distri.uted to other facult+ ,e,.ers$ Bhen respondent did not report to her new assign,ent, petitioner issued a ,e,orandu, directing respondent to e6plain in writing within sevent+ two >2! hours wh+ no disciplinar+ action should .e ta;en against her$ Respondent stated that upon approval of her re@uest for financial assistance, she will i,,ediatel+ report to her new place of assign,ent$ 0n 1une 25, 2004, respondent received an endorse,ent approving her travel e6penses$ 0n 1une (0, 2004, Billia, 8$ 4errera, Director of &%3":roo;e<s &oint, infor,ed petitioner that respondent ,erel+ reported for two to three hours on 1une 15, 2004 and did not return since then$ *hus, petitioner issued another ,e,orandu, directing respondent to e6plain within >2 hours wh+ she should not .e ad,inistrativel+ charged with insu.ordination for failure to co,pl+ with the order of reassign,ent 0ffice 0rder 'o$ 0)1!$ Again, respondent declared that her failure to report to her new station was due to her poor financial status$ 7inding respondent<s e6planation unsatisfactor+, petitioner issued Ad,inistrative 0rder 'o$ 001 dated 1ul+ 5, 2004 i,posing upon respondent the penalt+ of one 1! ,onth suspension fro, office without pa+$ Respondent<s ,otion for reconsideration was denied$ Bhen respondent<s suspension e6pired, on August 5, 2004, petitioner issued another ,e,orandu, directing respondent to i,,ediatel+ report at :roo;e<s &oint$ &etitioner infor,ed respondent that she, her hus.and and ,inor children are entitled to traveling and freight

ISION

e6penses$ Respondent filed another ,otion for reconsideration stressing that her relocation would result in financial distress to her fa,il+$ Again, she re@uested that she re,ain at the ,ain ca,pus$ &etitioner issued another ,e,orandu, directing respondent to e6plain within >2 hours wh+ she should not .e ad,inistrativel+ charged with insu.ordination$ =nstead of tendering an e6planation, respondent sent petitioner a letter dated August (0, 2004 stating that she has appealed petitioner<s order of reassign,ent and suspension to the &%3 :oard of Regents$ %he re@uested for the defer,ent of an+ action against her$ 4owever, petitioner clai,ed that respondent failed to furnish her a cop+ of the notice of appeal$ *hus, on %epte,.er 1(, 2004, petitioner issued Ad,inistrative 0rder 'o$ 00( finding respondent guilt+ of insu.ordination for the second ti,e and i,posing upon her the supre,e penalt+ of dis,issal fro, service$ Bhen reconsideration was denied, respondent appealed to the &%3 :oard see;ing nullification of petitioner<s orders$ %he argued that she was uncere,oniousl+ dis,issed without cause and due process and that her dis,issal was flawed due to procedural infir,ities such as lac; of for,al co,plaint and hearing$ 7inding petitioner<s actions in order, the &%3 :oard, in a Resolution dated 'ove,.er 1>, 2004, confir,ed petitioner<s orders, to wit/ 1! 0ffice 0rder 'o$ 0)1 reassigning respondent to :roo;e<s &ointC 2! Ad,inistrative 0rder 'o$ 001 suspending her for a ,onthC and (! Ad,inistrative 0rder 'o$ 00( ter,inating her fro, service with cancellation of eligi.ilit+, forfeiture of leave credits and retire,ent .enefits and dis@ualification fro, govern,ent service$ 0n Dece,.er 1(, 2004, respondent received her cop+ of the &%3 :oard<s decision confir,ing the orders issued .+ petitioner$ As the &%3 :oard Resolution dated 'ove,.er 1>, 2004 was allegedl+ unsigned, respondent wrote a letter dated 1anuar+ >, 2005 to Rev$ 7r$ Rolando 9$ Dela Rosa, 0$&$, the Chair,an of the &%3 :oard and Co,,ission on 4igher 5ducation C45D!$ %he sought to clarif+ whether the resolution was alread+ approved in a referendu, and whether the &%3 :oard intended to release the said resolution$ 0n 7e.ruar+ 1?, 2005, respondent was furnished a cop+ of the &%3 :oard referendu, [dated Dece,.er ), 2004] which approved and for,ali-ed the 'ove,.er 1>, 2004 Resolution$ %u.se@uentl+, on 8a+ ), 2005, respondent received the C45D ,e,oranda dated 'ove,.er 1), 2004 and 7e.ruar+ 11, 2005 stating that due process was not o.served$ *he C45D, then, reco,,ended the defer,ent of the dis,issal order to give wa+ to the proper o.servance of the rules of procedure$ Bhen the &%3 :oard did not act on the said reco,,endation, on 1ul+ 14, 2005 or al,ost five 5! ,onths fro, her receipt of the referendu,, respondent filed her 8e,orandu, of Appeal to the C%C$[2] 0n 1ul+ (, 200>, the Civil %ervice Co,,ission C%C! issued Resolution 'o$ 0>1255[(] granting respondent<s appeal, as follows/ #$EREFORE, the appeal of 7laviana 8$ 9alle, &alawan %tate 3niversit+, is here.+ GRANTED$ Accordingl+, the instant case is here.+ REMANDED to the &alawan %tate 3niversit+, &uerto &rincesa Cit+, &alawan, for the issuance of the re@uired for,al charge, if the evidence so warrants, and thereafter to proceed with the for,al investigation of the case$ *he for,al investigation should .e co,pleted within three (! calendar ,onths fro, the date of receipt of the records fro, the Co,,ission$ Bithin fifteen 15! da+s fro, the ter,ination of the

investigation, the disciplining authorit+ shall render its decision, otherwise, the Co,,ission shall vacate and set aside the appealed decision and declare respondent e6onerated fro, the charge$ *he Director =9 of the Civil %ervice Co,,ission Regional 0ffice 'o$ =9, &ana+ Avenue, Due-on Cit+, is here.+ directed to ,onitor the i,ple,entation of this Resolution and su.,it a report to the Co,,ission$[4] *he C%C found that respondent was not afforded due process as there was no for,al charge issued against her .efore she was adAudged guilt+ of insu.ordination and ,eted the penalt+ of dis,issal$ &etitioner filed a ,otion for reconsideration[5] .ut the C%C denied it under Resolution 'o$ 0?05?2[)] dated April 10, 200?$ Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 4( in the CA$ :+ Decision dated August 25, 2010, the CA sustained the ruling of the C%C$ 4ence, this petition alleging that E *45 40'0RA:25 C03R* 07 A&&5A2% 5RR5D =' R32='# *4A* *45 R5%&0'D5'* BA% D=%8=%%5D 7R08 *45 %5R9=C5 B=*403* *45 R5D3=%=*5 70R8A2 C4AR#5 *45 40'0RA:25 C03R* 07 A&&5A2% 5RR5D =' R32='# *4A* *45 C=RC38%*A'C5% %3RR03'D='# R5%&0'D5'*<% D=%8=%%A2 7R08 *45 %5R9=C5 B5R5 %40R* 07 %3:%*A'*=A2 C08&2=A'C5 B=*4 *45 D35 &R0C5%% R5D3=R585'*%[>] &etitioner argues that the re@uisite for,al charge had .een dul+ co,plied through her issuance of ,e,orandu, orders which were in the nature of a for,al charge conte,plated under the civil service rules$ Bith these ,e,oranda, respondent was apprised of the offense she had co,,itted and afforded her the opportunit+ to ventilate within a period of >2 hours fro, receipt of the sa,e the reasons wh+ she should not .e held lia.le for such offense$ &etitioner asserts that su.se@uent issuance of another directive captioned Ffor,al chargeG would have .een an e6ercise in redundanc+ that would serve no purpose other than to undul+ prolong the ad,inistrative proceeding, which could not .e the intend,ent of the rules$ 8oreover, respondent<s F[participation] in the ad,inistrative proceedings initiated against her .+ the &etitioner 6 6 6 li;ewise 6 6 6 supports the stance that proper ad,inistrative charges were initiated against her and ,ilitates [against respondent<s] contention that due process was not accorded her$G[?] Be disagree$ A for,al charge issued prior to the i,position of ad,inistrative sanctions ,ust confor, to the re@uire,ents set forth in %ection 1), Rule == of the 3nifor, Rules on Ad,inistrative Cases in the Civil %ervice[H] 3RACC%!, which reads/ %5C$ 1)$ Formal Charge$ E After a finding of a pri,a facie case, the disciplining authorit+ shall for,all+ charge the person co,plained of$ *he for,al charge shall contain a specification of charge s!, a .rief state,ent of ,aterial or relevant facts, acco,panied .+ certified true copies of the docu,entar+ evidence, if an+, sworn state,ents covering the testi,on+ of witnesses, a

directive to answer the charge s! in writing under oath in not less than sevent+"two >2! hours fro, receipt thereof, an advice for the respondent to indicate in his answer whether or not he elects a for,al investigation of the charge s!, and a notice that he is entitled to .e assisted .+ a counsel of his choice$ =f the respondent has su.,itted his co,,ent and counter"affidavits during the preli,inar+ investigation, he shall .e given the opportunit+ to su.,it additional evidence$ *he disciplining authorit+ shall not entertain re@uests for clarification, .ills of particulars or ,otions to dis,iss which are o.viousl+ designed to dela+ the ad,inistrative proceedings$ =f an+ of these pleadings are interposed .+ the respondent, the sa,e shall .e considered as an answer and shall .e evaluated as such$ Be have held that if the purported Ffor,al chargeG does not contain the foregoing, it cannot .e said that the e,plo+ee concerned has .een for,all+ charged$[10] *hus/ Citing C%C Resolution 'o$ HH"1H() entitled F3nifor, Rules on Ad,inistrative Cases in the Civil %ervice,G particularl+ %ection 1) thereof on the re@uire,ent of a for,al charge in investigations, the appellate court correctl+ ruled that/ As conte,plated under the foregoing provision, a for,al charge is a written specification of the charge s! against an e,plo+ee$ Bhile its for, ,a+ var+, it generall+ e,.odies a .rief state,ent of the ,aterial and relevant facts constituting the .asis of the charge s!C a directive for the e,plo+ee to answer the charge s! in writing and under oath, acco,panied .+ hisIher evidenceC and advice for the e,plo+ee to indicate in hisIher answer whether heIshe elects a for,al investigationC and a notice that heIshe ,a+ secure the assistance of a counsel of hisIher own choice$ A cursor+ reading of the purported for,al charge issued to 8anahan shows that the sa,e is defective as it does not contain the a.ove,entioned state,ents, and it was not issued .+ the proper disciplining authorit+$ 4ence, under the foregoing factual and legal ,ilieu, 8anahan is not dee,ed to have .een for,all+ charged$ Reference to C%C Resolution 'o$ HH"1H() is proper, .eing the law applica.le to for,al charges in the civil service prior to the i,position of ad,inistrative sanctions$ *he re@uire,ents under %ection 1) thereof are clear 6 6 6$[11] *he 8e,orandu, dated August 24, 2004 issued .+ petitioner to respondent prior to Ad,inistrative 0rder 'o$ 00([12] dated %epte,.er 1(, 2004 i,posing on her the penalt+ of dis,issal, is therefore defective as it did not contain the state,ents re@uired .+ %ection 1) of the 3RACC%/ August 24, 2004 8580RA'D38 *0/ Asst$ &rof$ 7laviana 8$ 9alle *his 3niversit+

%u.Aect/ Ad,inistrative Case 7or =nsu.ordination Jou are here.+ directed to e6plain within >2 hours fro, receipt hereof wh+ no disciplinar+ action .e ta;en against +ou for the ad,inistrative offense of =nsu.ordination for +our failure andIor refusal to co,pl+ with 8e,orandu, 0rder dated August 5, 2004 re@uiring +ou to report to the &%3 56tra,ural %tudies Center at :roo;e<s &oint, &alawan where +ou were reassigned as a facult+ ,e,.er$ As per written report dated August 1H, 2004 of Director Billia, 8$ 4errera, +ou have not +et reported for wor; to the said center$ %#D$! *5R5%=*A 2$ %A29A &resident[1(] As to the Fad,inistrative proceedingsG ,entioned .+ petitioner, wherein respondent supposedl+ participated, we find that it consists ,erel+ of the written e6planation su.,itted .+ respondent in co,pliance with the ,e,orandu, of petitioner$ %uch e6planation considered as answerIco,,ent is different fro, the answer that ,a+ .e later filed .+ respondent during the for,al investigation$ 5videntl+, the petitioner failed to su.stantiall+ co,pl+ not onl+ with the re@uisite for,al charge, .ut also with the other re@uire,ents under C%C Resolution 'o$ HH1H() concerning the procedure for the conduct of an ad,inistrative investigation$ =n fact, there was no for,al investigation conducted at all prior to the issuance of Ad,inistrative 0rder 'o$ 00( dis,issing respondent fro, the service$ =n Garcia v. Molina,[14] we declared the for,al charges issued .+ petitioner #overn,ent %ervice =nsurance %+ste, &resident without prior conduct of a preli,inar+ investigation as null and void$ =n this case, while respondent was given the opportunit+ to su.,it a written e6planation not a preli,inar+ investigation proper[15]!, she was not for,all+ charged, and no for,al investigation had .een conducted .efore the petitioner rendered her decision to dis,iss the respondent Ad,inistrative 0rder 'o$ 00(!, as re@uired .+ the civil service rules$ %ection 22 of the 3RACC% provides/ %5C$ 22$ Conduct of Formal Investigation. E Although the respondent does not re@uest a for,al investigation, one shall nevertheless .e conducted .+ the disciplining authorit+ where fro, the allegations of the co,plaint and the answer of the respondent, including the supporting docu,ents of .oth parties, the ,erits of the case cannot .e decided Audiciousl+ without conducting such investigation$ *he investigation shall .e held not earlier than five 5! da+s nor later than ten 10! da+s fro, receipt of the respondent<s answer$ %aid investigation shall .e finished within thirt+ (0! da+s fro, the issuance of the for,al charge or the receipt of the answer unless the period is e6tended .+ the disciplining authorit+ in ,eritorious cases$ 7or this purpose, the Co,,ission ,a+ entrust the for,al investigation to law+ers of other agencies pursuant to %ection >H$ Respondent had raised the issue of non"o.servance of due process in her appeal to the :oard of

Regents :0R!, in particular, that petitioner did not give her Fthe .enefit of hearing re@uired .+ law for her to refute or present witnesses and to adduce evidence for her defense to full+ air her sideG and Fever+ assistanceG including legal representation which she considered indispensa.le for the full protection of her rights in view of the possi.le loss of her onl+ source of livelihood$[1)] *he :0R, however ,aintained that a for,al hearing was dispensed with for .eing unnecessar+ since the records of the case sufficientl+ provided the .ases for respondent<s lia.ilit+ for insu.ordination$ %uch wanton disregard of the proper procedure in ad,inistrative investigations under the civil service rules cannot .e countenanced$ 7or a valid dis,issal fro, the govern,ent service, the re@uire,ents of due process ,ust .e co,plied with$ =ndeed, even the filing .+ respondent of a ,otion for reconsideration of the decision to dis,iss her could not have cured the violation of her right to due process$[1>] Bithout a for,al charge and proper investigation on the charges i,puted on the respondent, the respondent did not get the chance to sufficientl+ defend herselfC and ,ore i,portantl+, the petitioner, the C%C and the courts could not have had the chance to reasona.l+ ascertain the truth which the C%C rules ai, to acco,plish$[1?] =t is to .e noted that respondent had repeatedl+ re@uested the petitioner to reconsider the reassign,ent order .ecause of the financial hardship it would cause her fa,il+, e6plaining that her ,eager ta;e"ho,e pa+ was due to the loans she previousl+ availed to finance her post"graduate ,aster<s degree! studies$ Respondent should have .een given the opportunit+ to prove her defenses against the charge of insu.ordination and present evidence to refute petitioner<s clai, that her reassign,ent was reasona.le, necessar+ and not i,pelled .+ i,proper considerations$ Be @uote with approval the following findings and o.servations of the appellate court/ *o .egin with, petitioner<s ,e,orandu, dated August 24, 2004 contained no indication that her failure to e6plain or a.ide .+ her reassign,ent could result to her dis,issalC hence, respondent was not properl+ apprised of the severit+ of the charge to intelligentl+ prepare for her defenses$ And, even if Be were to construe petitioner<s ,e,orandu, as a co,plaint or a for,al charge, still, the circu,stances surrounding respondent<s dis,issal were short of su.stantial co,pliance with due process re@uire,ents$ A perusal of the ,inutes during the &%3 :oard ,eetings reveal that the issues of lac; of a for,al charge, notice and answer after a for,al charge, and a hearing co,,ittee to allow respondent to .e heard were ti,el+ raised$ :ut, the &%3 :oard agreed to decide respondent<s appeal .ecause the records were allegedl+ sufficient to show her lia.ilit+ for insu.ordination$ 0n the contrar+, further e6a,ination of the ,inutes of the &%3 :oard ,eetings shows that respondent<s repeated failure to report to her new assign,ent was not the sole factor which was considered for her alleged acts of insu.ordination$ =t was ,ore of respondent<s attac;s on petitioner and the ad,inistration through the radio or ,edia and her atte,pts to organi-e rallies that pro,pted the &%3 :oard to hasten their confir,ation of the order of her dis,issal without appropriate proceedings$ =n fact, the &%3 :oard issued Resolution 'o$ 45 strictl+ enAoining respondent Fto desist fro, inciting other ,e,.ers of the co,,unit+ to an+ protest action against the 3niversit+ or the 3niversit+ &resident$G 8oreover, petitioner .rought up in the .oard ,eeting that there have .een so,e cases of insu.ordination on the part of respondent regarding

the giving of depart,ental e6a,inations and co,plaints fro, so,e students regarding collections of ,one+$ =ndeed, respondent had a right to present evidence which, to sa+ the least, could have .lunted the effects of the &%3 :oard<s decision$ %he could have shown that her failure to co,pl+ with her reassign,ent order was in good faith and not willful or intentional$[1H] #iven the serious violation of respondent<s right to due process, no reversi.le error was co,,itted .+ the CA in upholding the C%C ruling granting respondent<s appeal and re,anding the case to the &%3 for the conduct of proper ad,inistrative investigation$ &etitioner nonetheless faults the CA in not holding that respondent<s appeal was filed with the C%C .e+ond the regle,entar+ period provided in %ection 4(,[20] Rule === of the 3RACC%$ %he points out that whether the regle,entar+ period for appeal .e rec;oned fro, Dece,.er 1(, 2004 E the date when respondent received the :0R Resolution 'os$ 44 and 51, series of 2004 and the Resolution dis,issing her appeal E or on 7e.ruar+ 1?, 2005 E the date when respondent received a cop+ of the Referendu, of the :0R dated Dece,.er ), 2004 approving :0R Resolution dated 'ove,.er 1>, 2004 confir,ing respondent<s reassign,ent, suspension and dis,issal, and dis,issing the appeals she filed, it is clear that respondent<s appeal with the C%C filed in 1ul+ 2005 is patentl+ .e+ond the regle,entar+ period of appeal$ Be hold that the CA correctl+ upheld the C%C in giving due course to respondent<s .elated appeal$ *his Court has allowed the li.eral application of rules of procedure for perfecting appeals in e6ceptional circu,stances to .etter serve the interest of Austice$[21] =n this case, the C%C found respondent<s appeal as ,eritorious and that dela+ in filing her appeal was e6cusa.le in view of her pending @uer+ with the Co,,ission on 4igher 5ducation C45D! and the ti,e she waited in vain for the :0R to act on C45D<% su.se@uent reco,,endation[22] to defer the i,ple,entation of the dis,issal order against respondent$ *hus/ As to ,ovant<s assertion that 9alle<s appeal was filed .e+ond the regle,entar+ fifteen"da+ period to appeal, records clearl+ show that upon receipt of the unsigned Resolution of the &%3 :oard of Regents confir,ing the reassign,ent and dis,issal orders, 9alle i,,ediatel+ wrote a letter to the Chair,an of the &%3 :oard of Regents and the Chair,an of the Co,,ission on 4igher 5ducation C45D!, in@uiring whether the said Resolution was alread+ approved and intended .+ the &%3 to .e released$ 0n 7e.ruar+ 1?, 2005, 9alle was furnished a cop+ of the Referendu, dated Dece,.er ), 2004 of the &%3 :oard of Regents, officiall+ confir,ing her dis,issal fro, the service$ %u.se@uentl+, on 8a+ ), 2005, 9alle received the 8e,oranda dated 'ove,.er 1), 2004 and 7e.ruar+ 11, 2005 of the C45D stating that the &%3 should defer the i,ple,entation of the dis,issal order and instead, issue a for,al charge against 9alle and that without the Referendu, of the :oard of Regents approving the unsigned Resolution, the sa,e has no legal effect$ 0n 1ul+ 14, 2005, after waiting for the &%3 :oard of Regents to calendar her case following the opinion rendered .+ the C45D, 9alle filed her appeal with the Co,,ission$ 7ro, the a.ove factual antecedents, it cannot .e said that 9alle<s dela+ in filing her appeal with the Co,,ission was intentional or deli.erate$ 0n the contrar+, it was e6cusa.le as she was waiting for the &%3 :oard of Regents to act on her case pursuant to the C45D 8e,oranda$

4owever, no action was forthco,ing fro, the &%3, thus she elevated the case to the Co,,ission$ 6 6 6 6[2(] =n Commission on Appointments v. Paler,[24] this Court li;ewise sustained the C%C when it entertained a .elated appeal in the interest of su.stantial Austice$ Be thus held/ Be agree with the C%C$ Be uphold its decision to rela6 the procedural rules .ecause &aler<s appeal was ,eritorious$ *his is not the first ti,e that the Court has upheld such e6ercise of discretion$ =n Rosales, Jr. v. Mijares involving %ection 4H a! of the C%C Revised Rules of &rocedure, the Court ruled/ 0n the contention of the petitioner that the appeal of the respondent to the C%C was ,ade .e+ond the period therefor under %ection 4H a! of the C%C Revised Rules of &rocedure, the C%C correctl+ ruled that/ 8ovant clai,s that 8iAares< appeal was filed wa+ .e+ond the regle,entar+ period for filing appeals$ 4e, thus, contends that the Co,,ission should not have given due course to said appeal$ *he Co,,ission need not delve ,uch on the dates when 8iAares was separated fro, the service and when he assailed his separation$ S%&&i'( i) )o *)+)( ),+) ),( o--i**io. &o%./ ,i* +pp(+l -(ri)orio%*. T,i* 0(i.1 ),( '+*(, pro'(/%r+l r%l(* .((/ .o) 0( *)ri')l2 o0*(r3(/. *his principle was e6plained .+ in the case of Mauna vs. C C, 2(2 %CRA (??, where the %upre,e Court ruled, to wit/ FAssu,ing for the sa;e of argu,ent that the petitioner<s appeal was filed out of ti,e, i) i* 4i),i. ),( po4(r o& ),i* o%r) )o )(-p(r ri1i/ r%l(* i. &+3or o& *%0*)+.)i+l 5%*)i'(. #,il( i) i* /(*ir+0l( ),+) ),( R%l(* o& o%r) 0( &+i),&%ll2 +./ (3(. -()i'%lo%*l2 o0*(r3(/, 'o%r)* *,o%l/ .o) 0( *o *)ri') +0o%) pro'(/%r+l l+p*(* ),+) /o .o) r(+ll2 i-p+ir ),( prop(r +/-i.i*)r+)io. o& 5%*)i'(. I& ),( r%l(* +r( i.)(./(/ )o (.*%r( ),( or/(rl2 'o./%') o& li)i1+)io., i) i* 0('+%*( o& ),( ,i1,(r o05(')i3( ),(2 *((6 4,i', i* ),( pro)(')io. o& *%0*)+.)i3( ri1,)* o& ),( p+r)i(*$ As held .+ the Court in a nu,.er of cases/ 666 =t .ears stressing that the case .efore the C%C involves the securit+ of tenure of a pu.lic officer sacrosanctl+ protected .+ the Constitution$ &u.lic interest re@uires a resolution of the ,erits of the appeal instead of dis,issing the sa,e .ased on a strained and inordinate application of %ection 4H a! of the C%C Revised Rules of &rocedure$G 5,phasis supplied! Constantino!"avid v. Pangandaman!Gania li;ewise sustained the C%C when it ,odified an otherwise final and e6ecutor+ resolution and awarded .ac;wages to the respondent, in the interest of Austice and fair pla+$ *he Court stated E F'o dou.t, the Civil %ervice Co,,ission was in the legiti,ate e6ercise of its ,andate under %ec$ (, Rule =, of the Revised #niform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil ervice that F[a]d,inistrative investigations shall .e conducted without necessaril+ adhering strictl+ to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applica.le to Audicial proceedings$G *his authorit+ is consistent with its powers and functions to F[p]rescri.e, a,end and enforce rules and regulations for carr+ing into effect the provisions of the Civil %ervice 2aw and other pertinent lawsG .eing the central personnel agenc+ of the #overn,ent$

7urther,ore, there are special circu,stances in accordance with the tenets of Austice and fair pla+ that warrant such li.eral attitude on the part of the C%C and a co,passionate li;e",inded discern,ent .+ this Court$ 6 6 6G25 Citations o,itted$! 8ore i,portantl+, the denial of the funda,ental right to due process in this case .eing apparent, the dis,issal order issued .+ petitioner in disregard of that right is void for lac; of Aurisdiction$ [2)] *he cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of .asic constitutional rights, courts are ousted fro, their Aurisdiction$ *he violation of a part+<s right to due process raises a serious Aurisdictional issue which cannot .e glossed over or disregarded at will$[2>] =t is well"settled that a decision rendered without due process is void a$ initio and ,a+ .e attac;ed at an+ti,e directl+ or collaterall+ .+ ,eans of a separate action, or .+ resisting such decision in an+ action or proceeding where it is invo;ed$[2?] #$EREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED, for lac; of ,erit$ *he Decision dated August 25, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA"#$R$ %& 'o$ 10()22 is AFFIRMED$ 'o pronounce,ent as to costs$ SO ORDERED. ereno, C.J., Carpio, %elasco, Jr., &eonardo!"e Castro, 'rion, Peralta, 'ersamin, "el Castillo, A$ad, Pere(, Mendo(a, Re)es, and &eonen, JJ., concur$ Perlas!'erna$e, J$, on official leave$
[1]

Rollo, pp$ 5("))$ &enned .+ Associate 1ustice 8ario 9$ 2ope- with Associate 1ustices 8agdangal 8$ De 2eon and 8anuel 8$ :arrios concurring$
[2]

=d$ at 5("5>$ =d$ at 1>4"1??$ =d$ at 1??$ =d$ at 1H0"20>$ =d$ at )>">2$ =d$ at (2$ =d$ at (5$ C%C Resolution 'o$ HH1H() dated August (1, 1HHH$

[(]

[4]

[5]

[)]

[>]

[?]

[H]

[10]

Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Court of Appeals, #$R$ 'o$ 1?5))?, Dece,.er 1(, 2011, ))2 %CRA 2H4, (0)$

[11]

=d$ Rollo, pp$ 1(0"1(1$ =d$ at 12>$ #$R$ 'os$ 15>(?( K 1>41(>, August 10, 2010, )2> %CRA 540$

[12]

[1(]

[14]

[15]

%5C$ 12$ Preliminar) Investigation. E A &reli,inar+ =nvestigation involves the e* parte e6a,ination of records and docu,ents su.,itted .+ the co,plainant and the person co,plained of, as well as docu,ents readil+ availa.le fro, other govern,ent offices$ During said investigation, the parties are given the opportunit+ to su.,it affidavits and counter"affidavits$ 7ailure of the person co,plained of to su.,it his counter affidavit shall .e considered as a waiver thereof$ *hereafter, if necessar+, the parties ,a+ .e su,,oned to a conference where the investigator ,a+ propound clarificator+ and other relevant @uestions$ 3pon receipt of the counter"affidavit or co,,ent under oath, the disciplining authorit+ ,a+ now deter,ine whether a prima facie case e6ist to warrant the issuance of a for,al charge$ A fact"finding investigation ,a+ .e conducted further or prior to the preli,inar+ investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the truth$ A preli,inar+ investigation necessaril+ includes a fact" finding investigation$ 6666 %5C$ 15$ "ecision or Resolution After Preliminar) Investigation. E =f a prima facie case is esta.lished during the investigation, a for,al charge shall .e issued .+ the disciplining authorit+$ A for,al investigation shall follow$ =n the a.sence of a prima facie case, the co,plaint shall .e dis,issed$
[1)]

Rollo, pp$ 1()"1(>$ %ee Philippine Amusement Gaming Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note 10, at (10$ =d$ at (11$ Rollo, pp$ )(")5$

[1>]

[1?]

[1H]

[20]

%5C$ 4($ Filing of Appeals$ E Decisions of heads of depart,ents, agencies, provinces, cities ,unicipalities and other instru,entalities i,posing a penalt+ e6ceeding thirt+ (0! da+s suspension or fine in an a,ount e6ceeding thirt+ da+s salar+, ,a+ .e appealed to the Co,,ission &roper within a period of fifteen 15! da+s fro, receipt thereof$

6666
[21]

%ee Rui( v. "elos antos, #$R$ 'o$ 1))(?), 1anuar+ 2>, 200H, 5>> %CRA 2H, 45$ Rollo, pp$ 2)5"2)?$ 8e,orandu, dated 'ove,.er 1), 2004$ =d$ at >1$ #$R$ 'o$ 1>2)2(, 8arch (, 2010, )14 %CRA 12>, 1(4$ =d$ at 1(4"1()$ %ee Garcia v. Molina, supra note 14, at 554$ =d$, citing Monto)a v. %arilla, #$R$ 'o$ 1?014), Dece,.er 1?, 200?, 5>4 %CRA ?(1, ?4($ =d$ at 555, citing +ngr. Ru$io, Jr. v. ,on. Paras, 4H5 &hil )2H, )4( 2005!$

[22]

[2(]

[24]

[25]

[2)]

[2>]

[2?]