You are on page 1of 2

SAMALIO V CA were scheduled.

Special Prosecutor moved that the case be considered submitted for


MAR 31 2005 | CORONA, J resolution based on the records [GRANTED]
BID Acting Commissioner: SAMALIO guilty of the charges and ordered dismissed
FACTS from service
CRIMINAL CASE  1ST ENDORSEMENT (former Justice Secretary GUINGONA, JR): confirmed
SAMALIO was formerly an Intelligence Officer of Bureau of Immigration and penalty of dismissal from service
Deportation  CSC: appeal DISMISSED; decisions affirmed
 City Prosecutor’s Office of Pasay City recommended that SAMALIO be prosecuted
for Robbery and Violation of Sec 46 Immigration Law before Sandiganbayan CRIMINAL CASE: During pendency of administrative case, SAMALIO was convicted
under the following facts: in Sandiganbayan of the crime of Robbery – penalty of 4M1D Arresto Mayor to
o MS. WENG SAI QIN arrived at NAIA from Saipan. While waiting for her turn 4Y2M11D Prission Correcional and to indemnify WENG US$500 [SAMALIO did not
at the arrival immigration counter, her passport was examined by Immigration appeal conviction, applied for and was granted probation for 2 years]
Officer Pajarillaga. Nothing that MS. WENG, a Chinese, was holding a
Uruguayan passport, she suspected that the passport was fake. So she was CA: Petition for review dismissed; validity of CSC resolutions upheld
brought to SAMALIO who was the duty intelligence officer
o MS WENG, who could only speak in Chinese, asked SAMALIO by sign ISSUE: WON SAMALIO was denied due process? NO
language that she wanted to meet a friend who was waiting at NAIA arrival SAMALIO: He was deprived of due process because no witness or evidence was
area. He approved the request and accompanied her to the arrival area. presented against him and CA erred in the interpretation of Sec 47 Rule 130 Rules of
SAMALIO, WENG and her male friend returned to the immigration area. Court and that there was no hearing conducted on his case
o While inside the office of SAMALIO, MS WENG asked that her passport be
returned. Sensing a demand for money in exchange for her passport, she SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
flashed $500 in front of SAMALIO which was grabbed by SAMALIO. Her COURT: CSC decision and resolution upholding resolution of SOJ confirming decision
passport was returned and she was allowed to leave. When she checked her of BID Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence
passport later, it did not bear an immigration arrival stamp so she complained  CSC, as well as SOJ and Commissioner of BID, decided the case on the basis of
against SAMALIO. pleadings and papers submitted by the parties, and relied on the records of
the proceedings taken
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE  The decision was based on the criminal complaint filed by WENG against
BID Commissioner RESPICIO issued Personnel Order No. 93-179-93 commencing SAMALIO before City Prosecutor’s Office as well as Resolution of same office
an administrative case against SAMALIO for violation of CSMC No. 46 Rule 2 Sec 1 recommending the prosecution of SAMALIO at the Sandiganbyan for the
for dishonesty, oppression, misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduct, inefficiency crimes of robbery and violation of Sec 46 of the Immigration Law
and incompetence in the performance of official duties, iolation of reasonable office  They also took cognizance of the testimony of WENG in Sandiganbayan and the
rules and regulations and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service fact that SAMALIO’s conviction in that case
 SAMALIO was required to submit his answer to the charges with supporting  THUS, there was ample evidence which satisfied the burden of proof required in
statements and documents and whether or not he elects a formal investigation if administrative proceedings – substantial evidence or that the quantum of
his answer is not considered satisfactory relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
 SAMALO was preventively suspended for 90 days as the charge sheet against him conclusion – to support CSC decision
involves dishonesty, oppression and misconduct
DUE PROCESS (APPLICATION OF ROC PROVISIONS)
SAMALIO’S ANSWER: Denied charges and expressly elected a forma investigation if Sec 47 Rule 130 ROC – “rule on former testimony” in deciding the administrative case
such answer be not found to be satisfactory; attached affidavits of his witnesses  The provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to the rules of
PEDREALBA, AQUINO, AUSTRIA and VITAN [UNSATISFACTORY – SET FOR procedure of administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial powers, unless
FORMAL HEARING BEFORE BOARD OF DISCIPLINE OF BID] otherwise provided by law or the rules of procedure of the administrative agency
 Several postponed hearings due to requests and non-availability of the parties concerned.
(mostly due to absence of SAMALIO’s witnesses)  The Rules of Court, which are meant to secure to every litigant the adjective phase
 SAMALIO moved to dismiss; Special Prosecutor did not interposed any objection of due process of law, may be applied to proceedings before an administrative
[case not dismissed – Special Prosecutor given 5 days to inform Board WON body with quasi-judicial powers in the absence of different and valid statutory or
he intends to present additional witnesses] administrative provisions prescribing the ground rules for the investigation, hearing
and adjudication of cases before it
BID Commissioner issued Personnel Order No. 93-428 reorganizing the Board of
Discipline – case assigned to a new Board; subpoenas were again sent and hearings Requisite for application of Sec 47 Rule 130:
(1) The witness is dead or unable to testify
(2) His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or IN CASE, SAMALIO was heard through the various pleadings which he filed with Board
administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interests of Discipline when he filed his answer and 2 motions to dismiss as well as other motions
(3) The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although and papers. He was also able to participate in all stages of the administrative
on different causes of action proceeding. He was able to elevate his case to the Secretary of Justice and,
(4) The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved subsequently, to the CSC by way of appeal.
in the present case
(5) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former ON APPROVAL OF PROBATION
case BACLAYON V MUTIA ET AL (invoked by SAMALIO) – the grant of probation
suspended the imposition not only of the principal penalties but of the accessory
IN CASE AT BAR, ALL REQUISITES WERE SATISFIED penalties as well
 WENG was unable to testify in the administrative proceedings before BID because  SAMALIO: Approval of probation in the criminal case restored him to all civil rights
she left the country even before the administrative complaint was instituted [this lost or suspended as a result of his conviction, including the right to remain in
fact was already disclosed to the parties] government service
 SAMALIO did not deny that the testimony of WENG was given in Sandiganbayan,
a case which sprang from the information filed pursuant to Resolution of City COURT:
Prosecutor’s Office, the very same resolution used by Commissioner as basis for (1) BACLAYON is not applicable. In that case, no administrative complaint was
filing of the administrative complaint [Issue testified to by WENG in instituted against the public officer during the pendency of the criminal case against
Sandiganbayan was the same issue in the administrative case (WON her and even after her conviction.
SAMALIO extorted money from her)] (2) Dismissal is not an accessory penalty of the penalty imposed by Sandiganbyaan.
 CSC and SOJ did not err when they applied it and took cognizance of WENG’s Even if his contention was correct, the grant of probation could not have resulted
testimony in Sandibanbayan in the case where SAMALIO was convicted in the suspension of an accessory penalty like dismissal that does not even exist.
(3) “To suspend” means “to stop temporarily; to discontinue” or “to cause to be
Administrative tribunals exercising quasijudicial powers are unfettered by the intermitted or interrupted”.
rigidity of certain procedural requirements, subject to the observance of  SAMALIO was granted probation by Sandiganbayan on Dec 12 1992, he was
fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases dismissed from service by BID Commissioner on JUL 25 1996. Since the grant
presented before them of probation was granted long before the administrative case was decided, the
 In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not probation could not have possibly suspended the imposition of the penalty of
strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due dismissal from the service in the administrative case since there was no
process in its strict judicial sense
 administrative penalty that could have been interrupted by the probation at the
time it was granted
(4) The imposition of the penalty of dismissal could not have been suspended by the
IN CASE, Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigations grant of probation
in CSC which were applicable to SAMALIO’s case provided that administrative
 As SAMALIO himself contends, the criminal action is separate and distinct
investigations shall be conducted without necessarily adhering to technical rules
form the administrative case so administrative liability is separate and distinct
applicable in judicial proceedings from penal liability.
 The Uniform Rules provides that evidence having materiality and relevance to the
administrative case shall be accepted WHEREFORE, PETITION DENIED
 Not only was SAMALIO’s objection to the application of Sec 47 Rule 130 a
technicality that could be disregarded, the testimony of WENG in Sandiganbayan
was also material and relevant to the administrative case – CSC was correct in
applying Sec 47 Rule 130 when it took cognizance of the testimony

ON HEARING
RULE: In administrative cases, the requirement of notice and hearing does not connote
full adversarial proceedings
 Due process in an administrative context does not require trial- type proceedings
similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through
oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural
due process.
 A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The
requirements are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.