G.R. No. 147423 October 15, 2008
TIRSO Z. OPORTO, petitioner, vs. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF INQUIRY AND DISCIPLINE OF NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, NAMELY: WILFREDO J. COLLADO, MELBURGO S. CHIU, JORGE LAGERA, in their official capacities, and GUIDO ALFREDO A. DELGADO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tirso Z. Oporto, a Principal Engineer C and Quality Assurance Inspector at the National Power Corporation (NPC), was administratively charged on October 30, 1996, for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Gross Neglect of Duty. The charge alleged that on or about November 10, 1994, he signed an NPC Inspection and Receiving Report (IRR) No. 002209 under “Inspected and Accepted By,” making it appear that woodpoles and crossarms were completely delivered on that date when, in truth, no such delivery occurred. Petitioner filed an Answer, claiming he signed the IRR in good faith after the items were completely delivered on November 26, 1994, and February 15, 1995, and that the erroneous date was an oversight. After a Pre-Hearing Conference and the submission of a Joint Position Paper by petitioner and co-respondents, the NPC Board of Inquiry and Discipline found him guilty of Dishonesty. NPC President Guido Alfredo A. Delgado, upon the Board’s recommendation, meted out a penalty of one-year suspension without pay. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed a Memorandum/Appeal Brief with the Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary and NPC Board Chairman, which was pending, when he filed a Petition for Prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, seeking to restrain the enforcement of the suspension order. The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order and later a writ of preliminary injunction, denying respondents’ Motion to Dismiss which argued failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, annulling the writ and ordering the dismissal of the petition, ruling that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and engaged in forum shopping. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner was denied due process when found guilty of dishonesty without a formal hearing and without adducing evidence.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in granting respondents’ petition for certiorari, reversing the RTC order, and ordering the dismissal of the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that petitioner was not denied due process. Due process in administrative proceedings requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner was given notice of the charges, filed an Answer, participated in a Pre-Hearing Conference, and submitted a Joint Position Paper. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to explain one’s side, and a formal trial-type hearing is not always necessary. On the second issue, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies mandates that relief must first be sought from administrative authorities before resorting to courts. Petitioner’s appeal to the DOE Secretary was still pending when he filed the court action. Exceptions to the doctrine, such as when the issue is a pure question of law or where there is urgency, were not sufficiently established. The Court also found that the filing of the judicial action while an administrative appeal was pending constituted forum shopping. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the proper remedy from the CA decision was a petition for review under Rule 45, not certiorari under Rule 65, but treated the petition as filed under Rule 45. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the RTC should have dismissed the petition for prohibition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.