G.R. No. 149335; July 1, 2003
EDILLO C. MONTEMAYOR, petitioner, vs. LUIS BUNDALIAN, RONALDO B. ZAMORA, Executive Secretary, Office of the President, AND GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, Secretary, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edillo C. Montemayor, then OIC-Regional Director of DPWH Region III, was dismissed from service by the Office of the President for unexplained wealth. The dismissal stemmed from an unverified letter-complaint by private respondent Luis Bundalian, alleging that in 1993, Montemayor and his wife purchased a house and lot in California, USA, for US$195,000. The complaint, supported by a Grant Deed and a Special Power of Attorney, asserted this acquisition was manifestly disproportionate to Montemayor’s government salary. The Philippine Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) investigated.
During the PCAGC investigation, Montemayor claimed his sister-in-law, Estela Fajardo, was the real owner and used their names to circumvent a mortgage prohibition and support their emigration plans. He submitted checks allegedly from Fajardo for the property but repeatedly refused to submit his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) and Income Tax Returns (ITR) as directed. The PCAGC found his explanation unsubstantiated and recommended dismissal, which the Office of the President ordered.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether Montemayor was denied due process in the PCAGC investigation; (2) whether his guilt was proved by substantial evidence; and (3) whether the prior dismissal of similar charges by the Ombudsman rendered the administrative case moot.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming Montemayor’s dismissal. On due process, the Court held it was not violated. Montemayor was given ample opportunity to be heard, represented by counsel, and submitted pleadings and evidence. The PCAGC’s inability to locate the private complainant did not prejudice Montemayor, as the burden was on him to prove the lawful source of the property. His refusal to submit his SALN and ITR, despite requests, rightly raised the presumption that such withheld evidence would be adverse.
On substantial evidence, the Court ruled it existed. The Grant Deed established the acquisition. Montemayor’s official income was vastly disproportionate to the property’s value. His alternative explanation was deemed unsubstantiated and self-serving, and his failure to present his SALNs and ITRs to show other lawful income sources was fatal. In administrative proceedings, substantial evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate—is sufficient, and this standard was met.
Finally, the prior dismissal by the Ombudsman did not render the case moot or constitute res judicata. The Ombudsman case concerned potential criminal liability, while the PCAGC proceeding was an administrative exercise of the President’s power of control over appointees. The doctrine of res judicata applies to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, not to purely administrative investigations. Thus, the administrative finding of unexplained wealth and the penalty of dismissal were upheld.