ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
Search for
www.chanrobles.com:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 38 -
DISMISSING TEODORO P. DUKA, PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR (PARAD), DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM FROM THE SERVICE WITH PREJUDICE TO RE-EMPLOYMENT IN
THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE
This refers to the administrative case
filed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) against Atty. Teodoro
P. Duka, Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), DAR, Region
VI, for "Grave Misconduct, Gross Insubordination, Gross Ignorance of
the Law, Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official
Duties, Frequent Unauthorized Absences, Refusal to Perform Official
Duty, Absence without Leave and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service".
Antecedent facts show that, in the Formal Charge of May 20, 1992,
signed by Secretary Renato B. Padilla, Officer-in-Charge (OIC), DAR,
Atty. Duka was required to answer the above-mentioned charges committed
as follows:
"As Trial Attorney, you were re-assigned in Kalibo, Aklan, on May 5,
1975, under Team Leader Oscar Reloj. But you reported for duty only
once, on August 19, 1975, and thereafter you failed to report to your
place of assignment;
Absence, without authorized leave, from the month of May 1986 to August
1986, wherein Regional Director Dinsay issued a Memorandum directing
you to explain, within 72 hours, such absence without leave;
Failure to observe office rules and regulations and the Civil Service
Law by not submitting the required Daily Time Records (DTRs) and the
New Performance Appraisal Forms (NPAS);
The issuance of a Regional Special Order, dated September 5, 1984,
without authority;
Failure to comply with the directive of the Secretary, as embodied in a
Memorandum dated September 25, 1991, temporarily assigning you to the
DAR Regional Office, Region VI, as your new place of assignment;
Failure to file any application for leave after you authorized vacation
leave expired on December 27, 1991, likewise, there is no record of any
authorized leave for the period November 8 to 29, 1991;
Issuance of the Orders, dated 23 and 24 April 1992, in Case No. 001 to
Case No. VI-159-NO-91, entitled, "Guillermo Gomez, Plaintiff, vs.
Eriberto Igbaras, Defendant," declaring therein the Memorandum, dated
February 12, 1991, of Regional Director Maraya as null and void for
being contrary to law and the DARAB rules, ordering PARO Arsenal to
issue the clearance for your property accountabilities, and to prepare
the voucher for your RATA, without proper authority and which are
contrary to law and jurisprudence;
Inspite of the pendency of a Motion for Reconsideration, dated 29 April
1992, filed by PARO Arsenal, you issued a Warrant of Arrest on 30 April
1992, without proper authority and which is contrary to law;
Failure to comply with the instruction of DARAB Executive Director
Samson for you to return all Negros Occidental DARAB Cases to RARAD
Baril's Office;
Failure to comply with Special Order No. 45, s. of 1991, issued by the
Secretary assigning all PARADs to their respective Regional Offices to
constitute a pool of adjudicators reporting directly to the RARADs who
shall have the flexibility of assigning them to provinces with the most
number of cases."
In the same charge sheet, Duka was preventively suspended and was
required to answer under oath the charges in writing within seventy-two
(72) hours from receipt thereof. Duka received a copy of the charge
sheet on May 26, 1992, as evidenced by the Sheriff's return of service
dated June 1, 1992.
On June 4, 1992, Duka filed his Answer contending that Secretary
Padilla is without legal authority to have him investigated; that the
formal charge is a complete nullity because it contravenes the due
process clause of the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court.
On June 18, 1992, Duka filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
prohibition, mandamus and damages, with a prayer for a preliminary
injunctive relief. The petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 28055,
impleaded Secretary Padilla and Negros Occidental Provincial Agrarian
Reform Officer (PARO) Alexis Arsenal as respondents. The Court of
Appeals per its resolution, dated June 23, 1992, directed respondents
to file their answers.
Meanwhile, the administrative case was set for formal investigation on
June 27, 28, 29, 30, 1992, at the PARO Office, Bacolod City. On the
first day of the scheduled hearing, Duka filed a "motion to resolve
pending incidents and to suspend hearing until termination of CA-G.R.
SP No. 28055."
In a memorandum dated July 27, 1992, the DAR informed Duka that his
motion shall be considered as submitted for resolution and pending
resolution thereof, the investigation shall proceed as scheduled. Duka
was served a copy of the memorandum per sheriff return of service dated
May 4, 1992.
The events that transpired during the hearing was stated in the DAR
Order, dated September 25, 1992, to wit:
"During the hearing, Atty. Quirino S. Infante, Counsel for the [DAR]
presented [several witnesses]. On the other hand, the Respondent,
inspite of due notice, failed to attend the hearings/investigations
conducted.
The pertinent portions of the hearing/investigation may be outlined as
follows:
A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
xxx
6.
xxx
9.
xxx
10.
xxx
14.
15.
16.
17.
B.
1.
2.
xxx
4.
xxx
C.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
In a letter to DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao, dated August 10, 1992, Duka alleged that he has never seen a copy of the complaint; that the hearing was conducted in a "Kangaroo-style"; and that the hearing was never conducted.
On the basis of the evidence presented during the investigation, the DAR found Duka guilty of the charges and recommended his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in the government service.
The issues in this case are:
1.
2.
3.
On the first issue, I confirm the action of Secretary Padilla in initiating the herein administrative action. Respondent, being a presidential appointee, is under the administrative disciplinary authority of the President. For his appreciation, "[T]he multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive." (Villena vs. The Secretary of the Interior, 67 Phil. 451, 463).
The second issue is anchored principally on the ground of lack of due process. The records disclose that respondent was served a copy of the formal charge, dated May 20, 1992; he filed his answer thereto; he was notified of the scheduled hearings by telegram; he filed a motion, dated July 27, 1992; he was served a copy of the DAR Memorandum of July 27, 1992, directing continuation of the formal hearing; and he wrote a letter to DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao, dated August 10, 1992, assailing the complaint and the proceedings therein.
These facts show that respondent was given notice and opportunity to be heard, the minimum requirement of due process.
The Supreme Court in the LLora Motors, Inc. vs. Drilon, ruled that: "[t]he Court had held in the past that a formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand." (179 SCRA 175, 130.) "The standards of due process in judicial as well as administrative proceedings have long been established. In its bare minimum due process of law simply means giving notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered." (Wenphil Corporation vs. NLRC, 170 SCRA 69, 75.)
In a memorandum of September 25, 1991 (Exhibit "SS"), then DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong directed respondent to inhibit himself from handling cases within the territorial jurisdiction of Negros Occidental; to transfer all pending cases for adjudication to Atty. Hilario Baril, Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator; and to submit a status report of the cases handled by him as well as decision/actions taken thereon, with an advice of his temporary assignment to the DAR Regional Office, Region VI, under the direct supervision of Regional Director Antonio Maraya.
Records disclose that respondent did not report to the regional offices as directed. Instead, he filed an application for leave until December 27, 1991. In a memorandum of February 12, 1992, Director Maraya reminded respondent of the DAR Secretary's memorandum, dated September 25, 1991, and of the absences without leave incurred by the latter since January 2, 1992. Moreover, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) employees testified during the hearing that respondent continued to adjudicate DARAB cases even after he was assigned by Secretary Leong to the DAR Regional Office, Region VI, Iloilo City, and notwithstanding the directive that he inhibit himself from handling DARAB cases. Respondent's conduct aforementioned constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination.
On April 23, 1992, in an agrarian case entitled "Guillermo Gomez vs. Eriberto Igbaras", respondent issued an Order (Exh. "BB"), declaring the memorandum of Regional Director Maraya dated February 12, 1992 as null and void; directing PARO Arsenal to issue him (respondent) a clearance of all property accountabilities; and ordering the Acting DARAB Clerk of Court to submit the status of cases pursuant to the DAR Secretary's Memorandum dated September 25, 1991. The following day, April 24, 1992, respondent issued another Order (Exh. "H"), directing PARO Arsenal to prepare the necessary voucher for the payment of his (respondent's) representation and transportation allowance (RATA) for the months of January to April 1992. Thereafter, on April 30, 1992, respondent issued a warrant of arrest (Exh. "C") commanding any officer of the law to arrest and detain PARO Arsenal until Arsenal deposits the amount of Nine Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P9,600.00) to the Acting DARAB Clerk of Court, representing his (respondent's), RATA for the months of January to April 1992.
The issuance of these orders (Exhs. "B" and "H") and the warrant of arrest (Exh. "C") demonstrates respondent's gross ignorance of the law, inefficiency and incompetence.
Arsenal's refusal to pay respondent's RATA and to grant him clearance of property accountabilities which were the subject of respondent's order (Exh. "B") issued in connection with Gomez vs. Igbaras have absolutely nothing to do with the Gomez case.
The issuance by respondent of a warrant of arrest betrays his lack of knowledge and disregard of the law. Nowhere in the DARAB Rules is a DARAB Adjudicator, like respondent, authorized to issue warrants of arrest. To compound matters, respondent issued the warrant of arrest and the other orders aforementioned as Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Negros Occidental when he is supposed to be temporarily assigned to the DAR Regional Office, Region VI, Iloilo City, pursuant to DAR Secretary Leong's Memorandum of September 25, 1991.
On respondent's frequent unauthorized absences/absence without leave, records is fraught with evidence to support this specifications. Suffice it to cite Exhibits "MM", "NN", "OO", "QQ" and "Z", mentioned in the DAR Order, dated September 25, 1992, supra.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Teodoro P. Duka is hereby found guilty of grave misconduct, gross insubordination, gross ignorance of the law, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, frequent unauthorized absences, refusal to perform official duty, absence without leave, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Accordingly, he is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in the government service pursuant to Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 30, series of 1989, and pursuant to Sec. 8, 9, 17 and 22 of Rule XIV (Discipline) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, published on January 15, 1992, effective fifteen (15) days after his receipt of a copy of this Order pursuant to Book VII, Chapter 3, Sec. 15, of the 1987 Administrative Code.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 24th day of February in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety Three.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.
