G.R. No. 222471 , July 07, 2020
Estrella K. Venadas, Petitioner, vs. Bureau of Immigration, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Estrella K. Venadas, an Administrative Aide II at the Bureau of Immigration (BI), was administratively charged for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The complaint alleged that on February 11, 2007, Venadas enticed Emyly Lim-Ines to invest in a purported money-lending enterprise within the BI, promising a 5% return. Venadas showed Ines Landbank checks payable to “BI Employees” and/or “BI Employees – Estrella Venadas” and copies of employee payslips to bolster the scheme. After initially receiving returns, Ines demanded her investment back in November 2008. Venadas failed to return the money, and the checks issued were dishonored. Verification with Landbank revealed the checks (numbers 0000830301 to 301-EE) were not genuine. Ines filed a complaint with the BI on April 3, 2009. After investigation, a Formal Charge was issued against Venadas on July 30, 2010, by Atty. Ronaldo P. Ledesma, then Officer-in-Charge (OIC), upon the recommendation of Senior State Prosecutor Peter Lim Ong. Venadas was preventively suspended. BI Commissioner Ricardo A. David, Jr. found Venadas guilty and ordered her dismissal. The Department of Justice (DOJ) affirmed the dismissal. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) reversed the DOJ, ruling that an OIC lacks the authority to issue a Formal Charge and order preventive suspension, constituting a deprivation of due process. The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the DOJ’s resolution, holding that Venadas was estopped from questioning the OIC’s authority after actively participating in the proceedings. Venadas filed the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Venadas was estopped from questioning the authority of the Officer-in-Charge to issue the Formal Charge.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the defect in the issuance of the Formal Charge by an OIC was not an absolute nullity but was susceptible to waiver and estoppel. The Court found that Venadas actively and vigorously participated throughout the administrative proceedings without raising the issue of the OIC’s authority at the earliest opportunity, thereby waiving the right to question it. The Court further noted that the OIC issued the Formal Charge upon the recommendation of a Senior State Prosecutor after a preliminary investigation, and the ultimate disciplining authority (the BI Commissioner and the DOJ Secretary) affirmed the decision, thus curing any procedural defect. The Court also sustained the finding of guilt for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as Venadas used her position to deceive and defraud a private individual, damaging the BI’s integrity. The penalty of dismissal was affirmed. The Court also admonished Venadas’s counsel for making reckless and unsubstantiated accusations against the CA and the ponente.