GR 204172; (December, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 204172, December 09, 2015
HON. HERMOGENES E. EBDANE, JR., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. ALVARO Y. APURILLO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Respondents, DPWH officials and Bids and Awards Committee members, were formally charged with Grave Misconduct and preventively suspended for 90 days by Acting Secretary Ebdane. The charge stemmed from an anonymous complaint alleging the award of a construction project to an unregistered contractor. The DPWH Internal Affairs Office investigated, issuing a subpoena only to the District Engineer for documents and comment. Based on the resulting Investigation Report, which found the contractor unregistered, the Secretary issued the Formal Charge against respondents without first requiring them to submit their counter-affidavits or comments on the anonymous complaint.
Respondents filed an Answer with a Motion to Dismiss, arguing they could not properly answer due to a lack of factual basis and noting they were never asked to comment during the preliminary investigation. They initially waived a formal hearing. After being re-issued the same charge months later, they filed a new Answer demanding a formal investigation, alleging a violation of due process as they were not furnished the complaint details or allowed to comment preliminarily. They then filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
ISSUE
Whether the DPWH violated the respondents’ right to administrative due process in issuing the Formal Charge and order of preventive suspension.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and RTC, ruling that the respondents’ right to due process was violated. The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS) mandates a specific procedure before a formal charge is issued: upon receipt of a sufficient complaint, the person complained of must be required to submit a counter-affidavit or comment under oath. Only after this ex parte preliminary investigation, where both parties can submit affidavits, should a formal charge be issued if a prima facie case exists.
Here, the DPWH bypassed this essential step. The preliminary investigation was conducted ex parte, with only the District Engineer being subpoenaed. Respondents were never furnished a copy of the anonymous complaint nor asked to submit their counter-affidavit during this fact-finding stage. They were first asked to explain their side only after the formal charge, which included a preventive suspension order, had already been issued. This procedure deprived them of the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time, violating basic administrative due process. The formal charge was therefore issued without authority and correctly set aside. The Court also held that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies did not apply, as the question involved was purely legal and the due process violation was patent.