G.R. No. L-81760 September 29, 1988
EDGARDO L. STO. DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. HON. SEDFREY A. ORDOÑEZ, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edgardo L. Sto. Domingo, a civil service eligible and permanent Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of Boac, Marinduque, was dismissed from service by respondent OIC Mayor Pedrito Nepomuceno pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order No. 17. The notice of termination cited three grounds: probable cause for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act based on Commission on Audit findings disallowing P726,863.79 for a municipal building renovation; a case for summary dismissal under the Civil Service Law for issuing a Certificate of Inspection and Completion despite knowing the construction was incomplete and non-compliant; and gross negligence and uncooperative character. The petitioner, through counsel, contested his dismissal, alleging a complete denial of due process as he was not served written charges, afforded an opportunity to answer, examine documents, confront witnesses, or defend himself. He filed a petition for reconsideration with the Review Committee established under E.O. No. 17.
The Review Committee required a sworn petition, which the petitioner submitted. However, the Committee denied his subsequent motion to cross-examine witnesses, citing its procedural rule that “No formal hearing shall be conducted nor shall examination of witnesses be allowed.” The Committee ultimately dismissed his petition for lack of merit. The petitioner now assails the validity of this procedural rule and the Committee’s resolution, arguing his dismissal was effected without due process and that the OIC Mayor lacked the authority to dismiss him.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the petitioner’s right to due process was violated in the termination of his employment, and (2) whether the OIC Mayor had the legal authority to dismiss him.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Review Committee’s resolution. On the due process issue, the Court found no violation. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to be heard. The petitioner was duly notified of the charges against him and was given the full opportunity to seek reconsideration before the Review Committee, where he submitted a verified petition with supporting documents. The Court held that the Committee’s rule disallowing formal hearings and cross-examination did not contravene due process, as such procedural formalities are not indispensable in administrative inquiries where a fair opportunity to explain one’s side is provided. The Court noted the Committee’s factual findings, which detailed the petitioner’s admission of guilt before the Sangguniang Bayan and his act of insubordination for failing to attend mandated seminars, remained unrebutted.
On the authority of the OIC Mayor, the Court ruled that the Mayor possessed the power to dismiss the petitioner. Citing the Local Government Code, which provides that the municipal planning and development coordinator is appointed by the Municipal Mayor, the Court held the petitioner was a local employee subject to the Mayor’s disciplinary jurisdiction. The general principle that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint was applied. The Court found no abuse of this disciplinary power, as valid grounds for termination existed. The petitioner’s argument that only the Minister of Local Government could effect the dismissal was deemed without merit. Consequently, the dismissal was upheld as legally sound and procedurally regular.