G.R. Nos. 161166-67; February 03, 2005
MAYOR RHUSTOM L. DAGADAG, petitioner, vs. MICHAEL C. TONGNAWA and ANTONIO GAMMOD, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mayor Rhustom L. Dagadag of Tanudan, Kalinga, initiated administrative proceedings against respondents Michael Tongnawa and Antonio Gammod, the municipal engineer and planning coordinator, respectively. After requiring them to explain charges of acts unbecoming of public servants and failure to perform duties, the Mayor created a Grievance Committee to investigate. The Committee found respondents liable for insubordination, non-performance of duties, and absences without leave (AWOL), leading to their two-month suspension. Subsequently, during their appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on the suspension, the Mayor issued another order dropping them from the rolls due to alleged unauthorized absences.
Respondents appealed both orders to the CSC, which affirmed the Mayor’s actions. They then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, submitting affidavits from the former Vice-Mayor and Committee Chairman, Guilbert Dangpason, who attested that no actual investigation was conducted and respondents were not given a genuine opportunity to defend themselves. The Court of Appeals consolidated the petitions.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether respondents were afforded due process in the administrative proceedings that led to their suspension and subsequent separation from service.

RULING

The Court of Appeals granted the petitions, reversing the CSC and ordering respondents’ reinstatement with backwages. The legal logic centers on the violation of due process. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proving just cause for disciplinary action rests on the charging party. The affidavits of Chairman Dangpason, which were not rebutted by the Mayor, credibly established that the Grievance Committee hearing was a sham—no actual investigation occurred, and respondents were denied their right to be heard. This rebutted the presumption of regularity in official proceedings. Consequently, the suspension order, based solely on questionable committee minutes, lacked factual basis and was illegal.
Regarding the separation order, the Court applied the rule on dropping employees from the rolls for continuous unauthorized absences of at least thirty days. The Court strictly construed this penal statute, noting that while respondents’ absences totaled over thirty days, the records showed these were not continuous or unbroken as required by the amended rule. Therefore, the separation was also invalid. The Supreme Court ultimately denied the Mayor’s petition, affirming the appellate court’s ruling that the disciplinary actions were void for due process violations and non-compliance with statutory grounds for separation.