G.R. No. 131124 March 29, 1999 Ramos.

He was assigned in Manila, from whose

November 29, 1993 to March 15, 1994, names
OSMUNDO G. UMALI, petitioner, and in Makati, from March 16, 1994 to appeared
vs. August 4, 1994. in the
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TEOFISTO LA's as
T. GUINGONA JR., CHAIRMAN, On August 1, 1994, President Ramos investigati
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION received a confidential memorandum ng
AGAINST GRAFT AND CORRUPTION, against the petitioner for alleged officers
THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND violations of internal revenue laws, rules were
THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL and regulations during his incumbency unaware
REVENUE, respondents. as Regional Director, more particularly that such
the following malfeasance, misfeasance LA's were
RESOLUTION and nonfeasance, to wit: issued to
them. He
A. issued
Issuance LA's to
of Letters favored
PURISIMA, J.: revenue
of
Authority examiner
At bar is a petition for review under Rule s such as
(LA's) to
45 of the Revised Rules of Court his
investigat
assailing the decision of the Court of Secretary,
e
Appeals dated April 8, 1997, which set Natividad
taxpayers
aside the Amended Decision dated Feliciano;
despite
December 13, 1995 of the Regional Trial
the ban
Court of Makati in Civil Case No. 94- B.
on
3078, and dismissed the petition Terminati
investigati
for Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction on of tax
ons as
brought by petitioner against the cases
ordered in
respondents. without
Revenue
Memoran the
The antecedent facts leading to the filing dum submissio
of the present are as follows: Order No. n of the
31-93. In required
On October 27, 1993, petitioner numerous investigati
Osmundo Umali was appointed Regional cases, on
Director of the Bureau of Internal revenue reports,
Revenue by the then President Fidel V. officers thus
exemptin abuses or E.
g the errors; Despite
same the
from D. devolution
examinati Unlawful of the
on and issuance authority
review; of LA's to to issue
taxpayers LA's from
C. who were Regional
Terminate thereafter Directors
d cases convinced to the
with to avail of Revenue
reports the BIR's District
were compromi Officers
submitted se and under
directly to abatemen RMO 26-
and t program 94, dated
approved under April 14,
by RMO's 1994,
responde 45093 responde
nt Umali and 54- nt Umali
without 93, for continued
being which the to issue
reviewed taxpayers antedated
by the were LA's in
Assistant made, for absolute
Division, a defiance
thus monetary of the
eliminatin considera aforesaid
g the tion, to issuance,
check and pay using old
balance smaller LA's
mechanis amounts requisition
m in lieu of ed by him
designed being when still
to guard investigat Regional
against ed; Director
of San
Pablo rules and Statement of Assets, and Liabilities for
Region. In regulation the past three years (3), and Personal
one s, Data Sheet. Initial hearing was set on
instance, responde August 25, 1994, at 2:00 p.m., at the
he issued nt enlisted PCAGC Office. On August 23, the
a the petitioner filed his required Answer.
terminatio support of
n letter other On August 25, 1994, petitioner appeared
bearing regional with his lawyer. Atty. Bienvenido
the San directors Santiago before the PCAGC. Counsel for
Pablo for the the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Region purposes submitted a Progress Report, dated
letterhead of August 24, 1994, on the audit conducted
even questionin on the petitioner. As prayed for,
when he g petitioner and his lawyer were granted
was particularl five (5) days to file a supplemental
already y the answer.
Makati devolution
Regional /centraliza The hearing was reset to August 30,
Director; tion of the 1994, during which the parties were
and functions given a chance to ask clarificatory
of the questions. Petitioner and his counsel did
F. In his Bureau.1 not ask any question on the genuineness
attempt to and authenticity of the documents
cover up On August 2, 1994, upon receipt of the attached as annexes to the Complaint.
his tracks said confidential memorandum, former Thereafter, the parties agreed to submit
and to President Ramos authorized the the case for resolution upon the
muddle issuance of an Order for the preventive presentation of their respective
the real suspension of Umali and immediately memoranda.
issue of referred the Complaint against the latter
his to the Presidential Commission on Anti- Petitioner filed his Memorandum on
violations Graft and Corruption (PCAGC), for September 6, 1994 while the BIR sent in
of the ban investigation. its Memorandum on the following day.
in the
issuance Petitioner was duly informed of the After evaluating the evidence on record,
of LA's charges against him. In its Order, dated the PCAGC issued its Resolution of
and basic August 9, 1994, the PCAGC directed him September 23, 1994, finding a prima
revenue to send in his answer, copies of his facie evidence to support six (6) of the
twelve (12) charges against petitioner, to Art. 171, s against
wit: par. 2 and responde
4 of the nt for
1. On the Revised antedatin
First Penal g the four
Charge — Code, LA's cited
Responde against in the
nt issued the charge,
176 responde each LA
Letters of nt for the constitutin
Authority issuance ga
in gross of 9 LA's separate
disobedie and who offense,
nce to did not under Art.
and in investigat 171 (4) of
violation e the tax the
of RMOs cases, Revised
31-93 and each LA Penal
27-94. being a Code.
separate
xxx xxx xx offense. 8. On the
x Ninth (sic)
xxx xxx xx Charge —
3. On the x There is
Third sufficient
Charge — 7. On the evidence
There is Seventh to support
sufficient Charge — a prima
evidence There is facie case
of a prima sufficient of
facie case evidence falsificatio
of of a prima n of an
falsificatio facie case official
n of of document
official falsificatio under Art.
document n of 171 (4) of
s as official the
defined in document Revised
Penal Charge — admission
Code There is , violated
against sufficient RMO 36-
the evidence 87
responde of a prima requiring
nt in the facie case turn over
tax case of of all
of falsificatio properties
Richfield n of and forms
Internatio official to his
nal Corp., document successor
Inc. for s in each upon
indicating of the two transfer
a false cases as head
date on cited in of office,
the letter his and RMO
of charge, 27-94
terminatio under the requiring
n he provisions the
issued to of Art. surrender
the 171 (4) of of all
company. the unused
There is, Revised old forms
however, Penal of Letters
insufficien Code, as of
t evidence the dates Authority.
against of The
responde Terminati Commissi
nt in the on Letters on noted
other tax were the
case of false. defiant
Jayson attitude of
Auto 10. On responde
Supply the Tenth nt, as
Co. Charge — expresse
Responde d in his
9. On the nt, by his admission
Ninth own , towards
 valid and I. That the directing the parties to observe
legal petitioner the status quo until further orders from
orders of was the said Court.
the BIR, suspende
and his d and On December 23, 1994, the said
propensit dismissed Regional Trial Court dismissed the
y to defy from the petition. On January 10, 1995, the
and service in petitioner presented a motion for
ignore violation reconsideration, this time, theorizing that
such of his the Presidential Commission on Anti-
orders constitutio Graft and Corruption is an
and nal right unconstitutional office without jurisdiction
regulation to due to conduct the investigation against him.
s. 2 process
of law; Respondents submitted their
xxx xxx xx and Opposition/Comment to the Motion for
x Reconsideration. Then, the petitioner
II. That filed a Motion to Inhibit Judge Inoturan
On October 6, 1994, acting upon the the on the ground that the latter was formerly
recommendation of the PCAGC, then constitutio a Solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor
President Ramos issued Administrative nal right General and could not be expected to
Order No. 152 dismissing petitioner from of the decide the case with utmost impartiality.
the service, with forfeiture of retirement petitioner
and all benefits under the law. to security The case was then re-raffled to Hon.
of tenure Teofilo L. Guadiz, Jr. who, on December
On October 24, 1994, the petitioner was 13, 1995, handed down an Amended
moved for reconsideration of his violated Decision, granting the petition and
dismissal but the Office of the President by the practically reversing the original
denied the motion for reconsideration on responde Decision.
November 28, 1994. nts.
Not satisfied with the Amended Decision
On December 1, 1994, petitioner brought The case was raffled off to Branch 133 of of Judge Guadiz, Jr., the respondents
a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and the Regional Trial Court in Makati, which appealed therefrom to the Court of
Injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. issued on December 2, 1994, a Appeals.
94-3079 before the Regional Trial Court Temporary Restraining Order, enjoining
of Makati, alleging, among others: the respondents and/or their
On April 8, 1997, the Ninth Division of
representatives from enforcing
the Court of Appeals 3 promulgated its
Administrative Order No. 152, and
decision, reversing the Amended previously sent to the Office of the City NER
Decision of the trial court of origin, and Prosecutor, were recalled. WAS
dismissing Civil Case No. 94-3079. DENIED
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration On August 10, 1998, Commissioner DUE
met the same fate. It was denied on Beethoven L. Rualo of the Bureau of PROCES
October 28, 1997. Internal Revenue sent a letter to the S IN THE
Solicitor General informing the latter that ISSUANC
Undaunted, petitioner found his way to "the Bureau of Internal Revenue is no E OF
this Court via the petition under scrutiny. longer interested in pursuing the case ADMINIS
against Atty. Osmundo Umali" on the TRATIVE
In the interim that the administrative and basis of the comment and ORDER
civil cases against the petitioner were recommendation submitted by the Legal NO. 152;
pending, the criminal aspect of such Department of the BIR. 4
cases was referred to the Office of the 3.
Ombudsman for investigation. Petitioner raised the WHETHE
issues: R THE
On July 25, 1995, after conducting the PCAGC
investigation, Ombudsman Investigators 1. IS A
Merba Waga and Arnulfo Pelagio issued WHETHE VALIDLY
a Resolution finding a probable cause R CONSTIT
and recommending the institution in the ADMINIS UTED
courts of proper jurisdiction criminal TRATIVE GOVERN
cases for Falsification of Public ORDER MENT
Documents (13 counts) and Open NO. 152 AGENCY
Disobedience (2 counts) against the VIOLATE AND
petitioner. D WHETHE
PETITIO R
NER'S PETITIO
However, acting upon petitioner's motion
RIGHT NER CAN
for reconsideration Special Prosecution
TO RAISE
Officer II Lemuel M. De Guzman set
SECURIT THE
aside the said Resolution of July 25,
Y OF ISSUE
1995, and in lieu thereof, dismissed the
TENURE; OF ITS
charges against petitioner, in the Order
CONSTIT
dated November 5, 1996, which was
UTIONAL
approved by Ombudsman Aniano 2.
ITY
Desierto. Accordingly, all the WHETHE
BELATED
Informations against the petitioner R
LY IN ITS
PETITIO
MOTION S AS power of removal,
FOR RULED however, is not an
RECONSI IN absolute one which
DERATIO ADMINIS accepts no reservation. It
N OF TRATIVE must be pointed out that
THE ORDER petitioner is a career
TRIAL NO. 152. service officer. . . .
COURT'S Specifically, Section 36 of
DECISIO Petitioner contends that as Regional P.D. No. 807, as
N; AND Director of the Bureau of Internal amended, otherwise
Revenue he belongs to the Career known as Civil Service
5. Executive Service. Although a Decree of the Philippines,
WHETHE Presidential appointee under the direct is emphatic that career
R IN THE authority of the President to discipline, service officers and
LIGHT he is a career executive service officer employees who enjoy
OF THE (CESO) with tenurial protection, who can security of tenure may be
OMBUDS only be removed for cause. In support of removed only for any of
MAN this theory, petitioner cited the case the causes enumerated
RESOLU of Larin vs. Executive Secretary 5 where in said law. In other
TION the Court held: words, the fact that
DISMISSI petitioner is a presidential
NG THE . . . petitioner is a appointee does not give
CHARGE presidential appointee the appointing authority
S who belongs to the the license to remove him
AGAINST career service of the Civil at will or at his pleasure
PETITIO Service. Being a for it is an admitted fact
NER, presidential appointee, that he is likewise a
THERE he comes under the career service officer who
IS STILL direct disciplining under the law is the
BASIS authority of the President. recipient of tenurial
FOR This is in line with the protection, thus, may only
PETITIO settled principle that the removed for cause and in
NER'S "power to remove is accordance with
DISMISS inherent in the power to procedural due process.
AL WITH appoint" conferred to the
FORFEIT President by Section 16, Petitioner maintains that as a career
URE OF Article VII of the executive service officer, he can only be
BENEFIT Constitution. . . . This removed for cause and under the
Administrative Code of 1987,6 loss of
confidence is not one of the legal causes
or grounds for removal. Consequently,
his dismissal from office on the ground of
loss confidence violated his right to
security of tenure, petitioner theorized.
After a careful study, we are of the
irresistible conclusion that the Court of
Appeals ruled correctly on the first three
issues. To be sure, petitioner was not
denied the right to due process before
the PCAGC. Records show that the
petitioner filed his answer and other
pleadings with respect to his alleged
violation of internal revenue laws and
regulations, and he attended the
hearings before the investigatory body. It
is thus decisively clear that his
protestation of non-observance of due
process is devoid of any factual or legal
basis.
Neither can it be said that there was a
violation of what petitioner asserts as his
security of tenure. According to
petitioner, as a Regional Director of
Bureau of Internal Revenue, he is CESO
eligible entitled to security of tenure.
However, petitioner's claim of CESO
eligibility is anemic of evidentiary
support. It was incumbent upon him to
prove that he is a CESO eligible but
unfortunately, he failed to adduce
sufficient evidence on the matter. His
failure to do so is fatal.
As regards the issue of constitutionality unmistakable manifestation by the
of the PCAGC, it was only posed by Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal
petitioner in his motion for Revenue that his office is no longer
reconsideration before the Regional Trial interested in pursuing the case, and the
Court of Makati. It was certainly too late position taken by the Solicitor
to raise for the first time at such late General,7 that there is no more basis for
stage of the proceedings below. Administrative Order No. 152, as
effective and substantive supervening
How about the fourth issue, whether in events that cannot be overlooked.
view of the Resolution of the
Ombudsman dismissing the charges WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing
against petitioner, there still remains a effective and substantive supervening
basis for the latter's dismissal with events, and in the exercise of its equity
forfeiture of benefits, as directed in powers, the Court hereby GRANTS the
Administrative Order No. 152? petition. Accordingly, Administrative
Order No. 152 is considered LIFTED,
It is worthy to note that in the case under and petitioner can be allowed to retire
consideration, the administrative action with full benefits. No pronouncement as
against the petitioner was taken prior to to costs.
the institution of the criminal case. The
charges included in Administrative Order SO ORDERED.
No. 152 were based on the results of
investigation conducted by the PCAGC
and not on the criminal charges before
the Ombudsman.
In sum, the petition is dismissable on the
ground that the issues posited by the
petitioner do not constitute a valid legal
basis for overturning the finding and
conclusion arrived at by the Court of
Appeals. However, taking into account
the antecedent facts and circumstances
aforementioned, the Court, in the
exercise of its equity powers, has
decided to consider the dismissal of the
charges against petitioner before the
Ombudsman, the succinct and