CIVPRO G11 DIGESTS | JUDGE SIA | AMORES | BANGUIS | BUNALES | CAL | CAMANIDE | CHUA | CRUZ | DALANGIN | GOLEZ | GUILLERMO
| LA CHICA | MAZO | PAJO | SOLANO | UY | VILLADOLID | YAP 1
13.) Sec. Ebdane et al v. Apurillo et al.
EMERGENCY RECIT:
Case is about exhaustion of Administrative remedies. Officials of DPWH Tacloban were
charged with GROSS MISCONDUCT for awarding Lirang project to a contractor who was
not qualified to bid. They were issued a Subpoena by DPWH and later they retracted by filing
with RTC a petition for certiorari and prohibition contending that they were not accorded due
process, which the court granted. DPWH filed motion to dismiss on grounds of non-
exhaustion of admin remedies, which both RTC and CA dismissed and ruled in favor of
respondents. Case reached the SC and held that respondents rights to due process were NOT
violated and in fact they even WAIVED their right to formal hearing. Lastly, SC ruled that the
CA incorrectly exempted respondents from compliance with the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies. They are therefore required to go through the full course of the
administrative process where they are still left with remedies.
FACTS:
Juanito Alama, DPWH Assistant Head of the BAC Technical Working Group
(BAC-TWG) of the DPWH Tacloban, received an anonymous letter informing him
that RM Padillo Builders (RMPB) won bidding for the construction of the Lirang
Revetment Project. This happening despite them not being on the list of Registered
Construction Firms who were qualified to bid.
Later, Atty Rodulfo, DPWH Head of Internal Affairs, issued Subpoena which
directed Engr. Gervasio, DPHW Tacloban District Engineer, to answer complaint
and submit pertinent documents explaining inclusion of RMPB.
Atty. Rodulfo proceeded with investigation and forwarded report to Sec. Ebdane. It
was found that RPMB was indeed not qualified to bid, this Sec. Ebdane charged
officials of DPWH Tacloban with Gross Misconduct and that they be placed under
preventive suspension for a period of 90 days.
Officials of DPWH Tacloban answered that they were not in the postion to answer
formal charge due to lack of basis. They said they relied on RPMBs sowrn letter
that they were registered contractors, as duly sworn by the latter. Lastly, they
expressely waived theur rights to a formal hearing and sought that the case be
decided based on the records.
Five (5) months later, respondents were re-issued the same Formal Charge, to which
they filed their Answer with Manifestation (second Answer), reiterating their
previous statements, and further alleging that the DPWH Sub-District Office never
required them to submit a counter-affidavit/comment, as in fact, it was only Engr.
Baldos who had been issued a Subpoena to submit an answer/explanation regarding
the alleged irregularities in the bidding for the subject project. Moreover,
respondents averred that the Formal Charge served upon them did not state the
nature and substance of the charge/s hurled against them. For these reasons,
respondents demanded that a formal investigation be conducted.
Without waiting for the DPWH's action, respondents filed on June 27, 2006 a
petition for certiorari and prohibition (June 27, 2006 petition) before the RTC,
docketed as Civil Case No. 2006-06-75, alleging that there was a violation of their
right to due process since: (a) they were not made to comment on the anonymous
complaint; and (b) no preliminary investigation was conducted prior to the issuance
of the Formal Charge.
RTC issued TRO, where later a wirt of Preliminary Injuction was granted.
Petitioners filed Motion to DImiss on frounds of NON-EXHAUSTION OF ADMIN
REMEDIES and failure to state cause of action.
RTC ruling respondents rights to admin due process were violated, when deprived
to file comment on anonymous letter and was not accorded prelim investigation.
CA ruling affirmed RTC. Hence this appeal to SC
ISSUE:
WON respondents due process rights were violated. (NO).
HELD:
The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a
real opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, as in the case at bar, procedural
due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek
a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only
verbal arguments in court; one may also be heard thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be
heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural
due process.
In Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, the Court ruled that any
procedural defect in the proceedings taken against the government employee therein was cured
by his filing of a motion for reconsideration and by his appealing the adverse result to the
administrative agency (in that case, the Civil Service Commission [CSC]).
In this case, the Court finds that while there were missteps in the proceedings conducted
before the DPWH, namely: (a) respondents were not made to file their initial comment on the
anonymous complaint; and (b) no preliminary investigation was conducted before the filing of
the Formal Charge against them, contrary to the sequential procedure under the
URACCS, they were, nonetheless, accorded a fair opportunity to be heard when the Formal
Charge directed them to submit answer within 10 days.
In fact respondents answered and WAIVED their rights to formal hearing.
Thus, having established that there was no violation of respondents' rights to administrative
due process, the CA incorrectly exempted respondents from compliance with the rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies. They are therefore required to go through the full
course of the administrative process where they are still left with remedies. As case law states,
a party with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative
procedure to obtain relief, but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking
judicial intervention. If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to
by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that
comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's
judicial power can be sought.
PETIOTION GRANTED. Case is REMANDED to DPWH for continuation of admin
proceedings.