G.R. No. 150178 November 26, 2004
Florian R. Gaoiran, petitioner, vs. Hon. Angel C. Alcala, Retired Chairman, Commission on Higher Education, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Florian R. Gaoiran, a Head Teacher at Angadanan Agro-Industrial College, was administratively charged for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The complaint, filed by respondent Edmond Castillejo, alleged that on August 15, 1997, Gaoiran mauled Castillejo inside the school premises while the latter was performing his duties. Witnesses and a medical certificate corroborated the incident. After a fact-finding investigation found a prima facie case, the CHED Legal Affairs Service formally charged Gaoiran and placed him under preventive suspension. Gaoiran did not file a written answer to the formal charge.
Subsequently, a CHED Director issued a resolution dismissing the complaint on the ground that the letter-complaint was not under oath. Unaware of this, then-CHED Chairman Angel Alcala issued his own Resolution dated June 3, 1999, finding Gaoiran guilty and ordering his dismissal. Gaoiran challenged this resolution before the Regional Trial Court, which nullified it. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the RTC and reinstated Chairman Alcala’s dismissal order.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the dismissal of petitioner Gaoiran by CHED Chairman Alcala.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the administrative complaint was validly instituted. The sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses appended to the initial letter-complaint substantially complied with the requirement for a sworn complaint, curing any defect from the unsworn letter itself. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to be heard. Gaoiran was afforded this right when he was formally charged and directed to file an answer. His deliberate choice not to submit a counter-affidavit or participate in the hearing constituted a waiver of his right to present evidence and cannot later be invoked as a denial of due process.
On the merits, the Court found substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt. The consistent testimonies of witnesses and the medical certificate established that Gaoiran assaulted a person in authority within school premises. Such act constitutes grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The penalty of dismissal for grave misconduct is prescribed by the relevant civil service rules. Therefore, CHED Chairman Alcala’s resolution was valid and the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in upholding it.