G.R. No. L-27916 August 21, 1975
JOVENCIO A. REYES, petitioner-appellant, vs. ABELARDO SUBIDO, Commissioner of Civil Service, RUFINO HECHANOVA, Secretary of Finance, MISAEL VERA, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, VICENTE TAGLE, Director, Regional Office No. 5, and ANGEL J. LIWAG, Chief Revenue Officer, Inspection District No. 24, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Jovencio A. Reyes, an examiner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, faced administrative charges for grave misconduct. An investigation was scheduled, but on the designated date, the complainant failed to appear. Petitioner moved to dismiss, but the motion was not granted. A subsequent hearing was set, but petitioner was not notified of this new date. Consequently, he was absent from that proceeding. Based on the investigation conducted in his absence, respondent Civil Service Commissioner Abelardo Subido found him guilty and ordered his dismissal from the service effective July 1, 1965. Petitioner, having resigned his position but seeking retirement benefits, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, challenging the dismissal order for violation of due process. The lower court dismissed his petition, primarily on the ground that he had not exhausted his administrative remedy of appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. Petitioner appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of petitioner from the civil service without being afforded a hearing violates the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and nullified the dismissal order. The Court held that the constitutional protection for civil service employees under the 1935 Constitution, which mandates that no officer or employee shall be removed except for cause as provided by law, carries both substantive and procedural significance. Procedural due process is an indispensable component, requiring that the employee be informed of the charges, be able to confront the complainant, and be given a full opportunity to be heard and present a defense. The Court cited the doctrinal rule established in Cornejo v. Gabriel and reinforced in Lacson v. Romero, which mandates a fair investigation and hearing before removal.
In this case, petitioner was effectively denied this right. He was ready for the initial hearing, which did not proceed due to the complainant’s absence. He was then deprived of the opportunity to attend the subsequent hearing because he was not notified. His dismissal, based on an ex parte proceeding, was patently illegal. The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that a formal hearing was superfluous, emphasizing that the right to a hearing is mandatory and not discretionary, as clearly articulated in Abaya v. Villegas. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies did not bar judicial recourse in this instance. The case presented a purely legal question involving a patently illegal act, the denial of due process constituted an exception to the exhaustion rule, and the available administrative appeal was not an expeditious and adequate remedy given the circumstances. The dismissal order was therefore declared null and void.