G.R. No. 200577 , August 17, 2016
Civil Service Commission, Petitioner vs. Carolina P. Juen, Respondent

FACTS

Based on a letter-complaint, respondent Carolina P. Juen, Budget Officer I of the Municipality of Placer, Masbate, was investigated by the Civil Service Commission Regional Office V (CSCRO V) for allegedly paying another person to take the Civil Service Professional Examination (CSPE) on December 20, 1996 on her behalf. The CSCRO V, after comparing the respondent’s picture in her Personal Data Sheet with the picture in the Picture Seat Plan from the exam, found a prima facie case for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The respondent was formally charged. In her Answer, she denied the allegation and claimed she personally took the exam. A hearing was set for September 4, 2003. Only the prosecution appeared, and it presented evidence ex-parte. The respondent was then directed to present her evidence on November 15, 2003, with a warning that failure would constitute a waiver. She failed to appear on that date. The CSCRO V, in an Order dated January 16, 2004, found her guilty based on the documentary discrepancies and her failure to explain or appear, imposing the penalty of dismissal with accessory penalties. The CSC affirmed this in its resolutions. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). During the pendency of the appeal, the CA was informed that the respondent had died on December 23, 2008. The CA, in its Decision, set aside the CSC resolutions, finding that the respondent was deprived of due process as she was not given sufficient time to attend the hearings (notice for the first hearing was received on the same day, and for the second hearing only two days prior, while her counsel was in Cebu City and the hearing was in Legaspi City). The CSC filed the present petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the death of the respondent rendered the appeal moot and academic.
2. Whether the CA erred in finding that the respondent was not afforded due process.

RULING

1. On the effect of the respondent’s death: The Supreme Court ruled that while, as a general rule, the death of a respondent does not preclude a finding of administrative liability, an exception exists when the respondent has not been heard and continuation of the proceedings would deny the right to due process. Other exceptions include exceptional circumstances leading to equitable and humanitarian considerations, and when the penalty imposed would render the proceedings useless. The first exception applied in this case.
2. On the denial of due process: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s finding that the respondent was deprived of due process. The Court held that the CSCRO V hastily proceeded with the case and admitted evidence against the respondent without affording her a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Notices for hearings were received with insufficient time, making attendance extremely unreasonable. The opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration and appeal is not a substitute for the right to adduce evidence during the administrative process. Since the CA dismissed the case on the ground of lack of due process, and the respondent can no longer defend herself, the Supreme Court found it proper to dismiss the administrative case.
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.