G.R. No. 117565 November 18, 1997
ARSENIO P. LUMIQUED (deceased), Regional Director, DAR — CAR, Represented by his Heirs, Francisca A. Lumiqued, May A. Lumiqued, Arlene A. Lumiqued and Richard A. Lumiqued, petitioners, vs. Honorable APOLONIO G. EXEVEA, ERDOLFO V. BALAJADIA and FELIX T. CABADING, ALL Members of Investigating Committee, created by DOJ Order No. 145 on May 30, 1992; HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, HON. ANTONIO T. CARPIO, CHIEF Presidential Legal Adviser/Counsel; and HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, Senior Deputy Executive Secretary of the Office of the President, and JEANNETTE OBAR-ZAMUDIO, Private Respondent, respondents.

FACTS

Arsenio P. Lumiqued was the Regional Director of the DAR-CAR until his dismissal by President Fidel V. Ramos pursuant to Administrative Order No. 52 dated May 12, 1993. The dismissal stemmed from three affidavit-complaints filed by DAR-CAR Regional Cashier Jeannette Obar-Zamudio charging him with (1) malversation through falsification of official documents for padding gasoline receipts and claiming reimbursements of P44,172.46; (2) violation of COA rules for unliquidated cash advances totaling P116,000.00; and (3) oppression and harassment for relieving her from her post after she filed the complaints. The Department of Justice created an investigating committee. Lumiqued submitted a counter-affidavit denying the charges. Committee hearings were conducted on July 3 and 10, 1992, during which Lumiqued was not assisted by counsel. On July 10, he moved to reset the hearing to July 17 to enable him to employ counsel, which was granted. Neither Lumiqued nor his counsel appeared on July 17, so the committee deemed the case submitted. Lumiqued later filed a motion for additional hearing alleging he suffered a stroke on July 10, which was denied. The committee found Lumiqued liable for Gross Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. The Secretary of Justice endorsed the findings to the President, who issued the dismissal order. Lumiqued died on May 19, 1994, and his heirs instituted this petition.

ISSUE

Does the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted by counsel during an administrative inquiry?

RULING

Yes. The constitutional right to counsel, while invocable in criminal proceedings, is not available in administrative investigations as a matter of right. However, the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The right to counsel is not an indispensable requirement of due process in administrative cases. What is required is that the respondent be given the chance to be heard and to present evidence. In this case, Lumiqued was afforded due process. He was given the opportunity to be heard through his counter-affidavit and was present during the initial hearings. His failure to appear with counsel on the hearing date he himself requested was his own doing. The denial of his motion for additional hearing was justified as his counter-affidavit was already thorough and complete. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the proceedings. The petition was dismissed.