G.R. No. 141149 ; July 5, 2002
Sebastian Garcia, petitioner, vs. Juanito A. Pajaro and The City of Dagupan, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Sebastian Garcia, an employee of the Dagupan City Treasurer’s Office, was preventively suspended by City Treasurer Juanito Pajaro from June 1, 1990, to March 15, 1992, and his salary was withheld. The suspension stemmed from a Formal Charge filed by Pajaro against Garcia for alleged unsatisfactory performance and neglect of duty. Garcia received the suspension order and a subsequent subpoena for an investigation but refused to participate, believing the process was invalid as Pajaro acted as complainant, investigator, and judge. He continued reporting for work but was not paid. Garcia filed a case seeking payment of back salaries and damages for alleged illegal suspension and violation of due process.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed Garcia’s complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the suspension and subsequent proceedings were valid. Garcia elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review, arguing denial of due process and questioning the City Treasurer’s authority to discipline him.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) Whether the City Treasurer had the authority to initiate disciplinary action and impose preventive suspension on a subordinate; and (2) Whether Garcia was denied due process in the administrative proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the City Treasurer, as the head of the city treasury office, possessed the inherent power to discipline immediate subordinates. This authority is derived from the Administrative Code of 1987 and the Local Government Code, which empower department heads to oversee their personnel. The Court clarified that while the city mayor has general supervisory power, the city treasurer, as an appointing and disciplinary authority for his own office, could validly initiate administrative charges.
On the due process issue, the Court held that Garcia was not denied his right. Due process in administrative proceedings is satisfied by the opportunity to be heard. The records showed Garcia was formally charged, preventively suspended in accordance with procedure, and subpoenaed to an investigation. His own refusal to participate and submit his counter-affidavit constituted a waiver of his right to present his side. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to explain oneself, which was afforded to but spurned by Garcia. The subsequent ex-parte investigation and the approval of the suspension by the Department of Finance further validated the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate is met when a party is given a chance to seek reconsideration, which Garcia did not avail of.