GR 189171; (June, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189171, June 3, 2014
EDILBERTO L. BARCELONA, Petitioner, vs. DAN JOEL LIM and RICHARD TAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Edilberto L. Barcelona was the officer-in-charge of the Public Assistance Center of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On August 14, 2000, respondent Dan Joel Lim, owner of Top Gun Billiards, filed a sworn statement with the NBI alleging that petitioner influenced his employees to file a labor complaint and demanded ₱20,000 for the settlement of the case. An entrapment operation was conducted on August 16, 2000, where Lim handed marked money to petitioner, who was subsequently arrested by NBI agents while counting the bills. A forensic examination confirmed fluorescent powder on petitioner’s hands and the money. Another complaint for extortion was filed by respondent Richard Tan. Based on these reports, NLRC Chairperson Roy V. Señeres issued an Administrative Order on September 1, 2000, formally charging petitioner with dishonesty and grave misconduct, placing him under preventive suspension, and creating an Efficiency and Integrity Board to investigate. Petitioner refused to receive the summons and order, did not file an Answer, and during a hearing, manifested he was not subjecting himself to the Board’s jurisdiction. The Board proceeded ex parte and found him guilty, recommending dismissal, which Chairperson Señeres approved on November 14, 2000. Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which affirmed the dismissal. The Court of Appeals also dismissed his petition. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative proceedings conducted against petitioner, resulting in his dismissal from service, were valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that the administrative proceedings were valid. Petitioner was accorded due process as he was given notice and opportunity to be heard through the formal charge and summons, which he deliberately refused. His refusal to participate constituted a waiver of his right to present evidence. The Court found that the evidence, including the entrapment operation details and forensic findings, substantially established his guilt for dishonesty and grave misconduct. The Court also ruled that the NLRC Chairperson had the authority to discipline petitioner and that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate. The Court further held that the pendency of a criminal case for robbery did not bar the administrative proceedings, as they are separate and independent. The preventive suspension and the order barring him from NLRC premises prior to the investigation were also upheld as valid exercises of disciplinary authority.