EN BANC
TOMAS
G.
VELASQUEZ,
OFFICIAL-IN-CHARGE,OFFICE OF THE SCHOOL
SUPERINTENDENT,DECS – DIVISION
OF ABRA; MARIETTA BERSALONA,CHAIRPERSON, DECS
- FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE;EDUARDO RUPERTO,
JOAQUIN PILIEN AND LUZ CURBI,MEMBERS, DECS –
FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
150732
August 31, 2004
-versus-
HELEN B. HERNANDEZ,
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x
CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
151095
August 31, 2004
-versus-
HELEN B. HERNANDEZ,
Respondent.
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I
O N
Tinga, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Subject of the consolidated
petitions is the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
61081,
entitled Helen B. Hernandez v. Tomas G. Velasquez, promulgated on 07
November
2001.[1]
The assailed Decision annulled and set aside the twin resolutions
issued
by the Civil Service Commission (CSC for brevity), in Administrative
Case
No. 97-45 filed against respondent Hernandez. The CSC, in its
Resolution
No. 00-1375 dated 13 June 2000, found respondent Hernandez guilty of
dishonesty
and grave misconduct and ordered her dismissal from the service, with
all
the accessory penalties including her perpetual disqualification from
holding
public office. In Resolution No. 00-2064 dated 07 September 2000,
the CSC denied respondent's motion for reconsideration of Resolution
No.
00-1375.
Stripped of non-essentials,
the following are the factual antecedents:
In a letter dated 25
September 1996, the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent of the
DECS-CAR,
(Cordillera Administrative Region) sent a letter to petitioner (in G.R.
No. 150732) Tomas G. Velasquez, informing him of the alleged
infractions
committed by respondent, Helen B. Hernandez, such as soliciting,
accepting,
and receiving sums of money, in exchange for transfer or promotion of
complainant
teachers. Acting on the letter, petitioner Velasquez convened a
fact-finding
committee to determine the veracity of the alleged violations of
respondent
and to render a formal report and recommendation.cralaw:red
On 26 September 1996,
the Committee composed of members assigned at the DECS-Division of
Abra,
summoned to a meeting the teachers who have grievances against
respondent.
Based on the sworn statements of the teachers, namely: Elena Princena,
Myrna Bayabos, Mildred Millare, Ofrina Benabese, Emilia Beralde, Ruby
Bringas,
Regina Potolin, spouses Ernesto Callena, Jr. and Ma. Louisa Callena,
Irene
Bermudez, Francisco Castillo, Elizabeth Castillo, Maribel Medrano,
Benigna
Bulda, Irenea Viado, Cecilia Turqueza, Catherine Badere, Rosalinda
Bilgera,
Nardita Tuscano, Henry Bisquera, Melba Linggayo, and Maritess Navarro,
it appears that respondent demanded and/or received money in various
amounts
from the teachers in consideration of their appointment, promotion, and
transfer from one school to another.chanrobles virtual law library
On 15 November 1996,
the Committee issued an Investigation Report recommending the filing of
administrative and criminal complaints against respondent. On 14 March
1997, a formal charge for Grave Misconduct, Conduct Grossly Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the Service, Abuse of Authority, and Violation
of Section 22 (k) Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 and
other
related laws was filed against respondent.chanrobles virtual law library
On 24 March 1997, respondent
filed her Answer to the charges. In the main, she contended that the
charges
are brazen fabrications and falsehoods made by parties with ulterior
motives
which are designed to harass her in a systematic campaign to discredit
her. Respondent likewise alleged that the preparation and taking
of the statements of the supposed 23 counts of irregularity leveled
against
her were attended by coercion and fraud.cralaw:red
Meanwhile, the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor of Abra issued a Resolution in I.S. No.
97-003
entitled, “People of the Philippines v. Helen Hernandez, et.al.” This
Resolution,
which arose from the sworn complaints filed by the complaining
teachers,
indicted respondent and a certain Luzviminda de la Cruz for violation
of
Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and
Corrupt Practices Act. The Resolution of the Provincial
Prosecutor
was affirmed with modification by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
for
Luzon in its Review Action dated 6 November 1997. Under the
modified
indictment, respondent and dela Cruz were charged with direct
bribery.
However, upon motion filed by respondent and her co-accused, the Office
of the Deputy Ombudsman in its Order dated 24 February 1998,
reconsidered
and set aside its Review Action dated 6 November 1997, and ordered the
withdrawal of Informations for direct bribery filed against respondent
and de la Cruz.chanrobles virtual law library
After due proceedings,
the CSC issued Resolution No. 00-1375, dated 13 June 2000, finding
respondent
guilty of the charges against her and ordering her dismissal from the
service.
The motion for reconsideration filed by respondent was denied by the
CSC
in its Resolution No. 00-2064 dated 7 September 2000.cralaw:red
Respondent appealed
to the Court of Appeals raising the following issues:
(1) Whether
or not the CSC erred in assuming jurisdiction and/or in rendering
judgment
adverse to her;chanrobles virtual law library
(2) Whether or not
the
CSC erred in rendering judgment against her in violation of her right
to
due process in administrative proceedings;
(3) Whether or not
the
CSC erred in its appreciation of the evidence on record and;chanrobles virtual law library
(4) Whether or not
the
CSC erred in imposing the penalty of dismissal.[2]
The appellate court, in
its now assailed Decision, reversed the resolutions of the
CSC.
It opined that when petitioners filed a formal charge against
respondent,
it was incumbent upon them to inform the Civil Service Commission that
another case was filed before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Luzon
considering that the facts and circumstances from which both complaints
stem are the same. Citing Section 13 (1) of Article XI of the 1987
Constitution,
and Section 19 and 21 of Republic Act No. 6770, the appellate court
added
that the CSC and the Office of the Ombudsman have concurrent original
jurisdiction
over administrative cases filed against any government
employee.
Thus, it ruled that the effects of res judicata or litis pendentia may
not be avoided by varying the designation of the parties, changing the
form of the action, or adopting a different mode of presenting one’s
case.
Anent the issue of violation
of respondent’s right to due process, the appellate court stressed that
it is not enough that the twin requisites of notice and hearing be
present.
It is important that the tribunal hearing the case must be unbiased;
indeed,
if the government official or employee under investigation is not
afforded
the opportunity to present his case before a fair, independent, and
impartial
tribunal, the hearing would be futile. Considering that the composition
of the fact-finding Committee is in question, the appellate court
concluded
that it cannot properly be said that there was a fair and impartial
hearing
of the petitioner’s case.cralaw:red
The appellate court
also ruled that petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving by
substantial evidence the averments of the complaint because it appears
that some affiants who executed sworn statements to support the charges
against respondent later retracted their statements and executed new
statements,
alleging that they were merely induced to testify against respondent.
It
also noted that some of the complaining teachers even failed to appear
in the investigation to confirm their respective sworn statements. The
appellate court, therefore, annulled and set aside the Resolutions of
the
CSC and ordered the payment of backwages to respondent.chanrobles virtual law library
Separate appeals via
petition for review were filed before this Court by petitioner
Velasquez,
in his capacity as Officer-in Charge, Office of the School
Superintendent,
DECS-Division of Abra (G.R. No.150732) and the Civil Service Commission
(G.R. No. 151095), assailing the decision of the appellate court.
The two petitions were ordered consolidated in a Resolution of this
Court
dated 25 June 2002. G.R. No. 150732, assigned to the Third
Division of this Court, was ordered consolidated with G.R. No. 151095,
an En Banc case even if the first mentioned petition has a lower docket
number considering that both cases involve resolutions of the Civil
Service
Commission.chanrobles virtual law library
The issues in both petitions
are substantially the same.cralaw:red
In G.R. No. 150732,
petitioner raised the following issues:
I.
THE COURT OF
APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE FORMAL CHARGE WHICH WAS FILED BY
THE
CSC AGAINST THE RESPONDENT SHOULD CONTAIN A CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING.
II.
THE COURT OF
APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE
DUE
PROCESS WAS VIOLATED.
III.
THE COURT OF
APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT WAS
INSUFFICIENT.
IV.
THE COURT OF
APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE
PAYMENT
OF HER BACKWAGES.[3]
On the other hand, the
following issues were raised by the CSC in G.R. No. 151095:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE
FORMAL
CHARGE SHOULD CONTAIN A CERTIFICATE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING;
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE
CSC
ERRED IN RENDERING JUDGMENT AGAINST RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE
LATTER’S
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS;
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE
CSC
ERRED IN ITS APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND FINDING
RESPONDENT
GUILTY OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED.[4]
In both cases,
petitioners
asseverate that under Section 21 of the Uniform Rules of Procedure in
the
Conduct of Administrative Investigations (CSC Resolution No. 99-1936,
dated
31 August 1999), it is the complaint and the not the formal charge
which
should contain a certification of non-forum shopping. The Office
of the Solicitor General strongly argues that the formal charge was
filed,
not by the complaining teachers or the DECS Fact-Finding Committee, but
by the CSC-CAR and it would thus be unnecessary to require a
certification
of non-forum shopping considering that the CSC is the sole arbiter of
all
contests relating to the Civil Service and it would be absurd for the
CSC-CAR
to file the same administrative case against respondent in another
forum.
The OSG adds that there was no need for the CSC-CAR to inform the CSC
about
the criminal action for Direct Bribery in OMB-1-96-2757 because the
said
action was not filed by the CSC-CAR.chanrobles virtual law library
The CSC on the other
hand, argues that what was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman is a
criminal case and while the facts therein may be similar to the pending
administrative case, the Office of the Ombudsman and the CSC will not
rule
on the same cause of action or grant the same relief. According to the
CSC, there is no possibility of having conflicting decisions as the two
cases are distinct from each other.cralaw:red
Petitioners dispute
the Court of Appeals’ finding that respondent’s right to administrative
due process was violated. Respondent can hardly be said to
have been deprived of due process as she was given the chance to answer
the charges, to submit countervailing evidence, and to cross-examine
the
witnesses against her. The mere fact that respondent questioned the
impartiality
of the fact finding committee will not automatically result in a denial
of due process because what matters is that respondent had actively
participated
in the proceedings against her. Petitioners add that respondent’s
culpability was not based solely on the report of the fact-finding
committee,
but also on the evidence submitted by the respondent which,
unfortunately,
was found wanting.chanrobles virtual law library
Succinctly, petitioners
argue that the appellate court erred in holding that the evidence they
presented to establish the culpability of the respondent is
insufficient.
The finding is based merely on the retraction of the sworn statements
of
some three teachers and the failure of three others to appear during
the
formal investigation. Petitioners stress that a majority of the
complainant
teachers remained consistent in their claim that respondent actually
and
directly received from them various amounts of money in exchange for
their
appointment, promotion, or transfer. They add that the dismissal
of the criminal action against respondent in OMB-1-96-2757 cannot be
treated
as a bar to the administrative case primarily because administrative
liability
is distinct from penal liability. In conclusion, petitioners
fault
the appellate court for reversing the factual findings of the CSC,
ordering
the reinstatement of respondent, and awarding backwages in her favor.cralaw:red
Upon the other hand,
respondent would have the Court sustain the Decision of the appellate
court
exonerating her of all the charges in the administrative case. Citing
CSC
Resolution No. 95-3099, respondent argues that even on the assumption
that
a certificate of non-forum shopping is not necessary in the formal
charge,
petitioners nevertheless failed to show that the complaint filed by the
teachers contained the required certification of non-forum
shopping.
She theorizes that since it is the CSC-CAR which filed the formal
charge
against her, it would be difficult to imagine that the CSC will make a
turn around and take a position contrary to its earlier findings that a
prima facie case against her exists. Respondent insists that to
allow
the CSC to exercise jurisdiction over the case would be similar to
allowing
one person to act as prosecutor and judge at the same time.cralaw:red
In support of the appellate
court’s Decision, respondent maintains that it correctly ruled that
there
was no fair and impartial hearing of her case before the fact-finding
committee.
She contends that the integrity of the fact-finding committee is
questionable
considering that the chairperson of the committee is a relative of one
of the complainant teachers, Ms. Immaculada Bringas, who incidentally
would
be the next in rank if she is ousted from her position. Finally, she
adds
that petitioners are urging this Court to review the factual findings
of
the appellate court which cannot be done in the instant petition which
must raise only questions of law.cralaw:red
The Court rules for
the petitioners.cralaw:red
CSC Resolution No. 95-3099
dated 9 May 1995 (Further Amended by CSC Resolution No. 99-1936, dated
31 August 1999), amending Section 4 of CSC Resolution No. 94-0521,
Series
of 1994, provides:chanrobles virtual law library
“Section 4.
Complaint in Writing and Under Oath - No complaint against a civil
servant
shall be given due course, unless the same is in writing and under oath.
The complaint
should
be written in a clear, simple and concise language and in a systematic
manner as to apprise the civil servant concerned of the nature and
cause
of the accusation against him and to enable him to intelligently
prepare
his defense or answer.
The complaint
shall
also contain the following:
(a) xxxchanrobles virtual law library
xxxchanrobles virtual law library
xxxchanrobles virtual law library
(b) xxxchanrobles virtual law library
xxxchanrobles virtual law library
xxxchanrobles virtual law library
(c) xxxchanrobles virtual law library
xxxchanrobles virtual law library
xxxchanrobles virtual law library
(d) a statement
that
no other administrative action or complaint against the same party
involving
the same acts or omissions and issues, has been filed before another
agency
or administrative tribunal. In the absence of any one of the
requirements
therein stated, the complaint shall be dismissed. (Underscoring
supplied.)
The appellate court
placed
much reliance on the above-quoted provision of CSC Resolution No.
95-3099
in relation to Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
when it ruled that it was incumbent upon petitioner (in G.R. No.
150732)
to inform that another case was filed before the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman
for Luzon. Strikingly, the appellate court failed to state in its
Decision the person or entity which petitioner must notify of the
pending
case with the Ombudsman. The appellate court then cited a litany
of cases on forum shopping and concluded that petitioner’s failure to
state
in the formal charge that there is no other action or complaint pending
against herein respondent constitutes a violation of the rule against
forum
shopping that merited the dismissal of the complaint. It
ratiocinated
that since the facts and circumstances from which both complaints stem
from are the same, petitioners should have attached in their complaint
the certificate of non-forum shopping. Inconsistently, however, the
appellate
court was quick to add that the cause of action in the CSC and the
Office
of the Deputy Ombudsman are distinct; nevertheless, it said that in
order
to obviate the risk of violating the rule, petitioners should have
attached
the certification against non-forum shopping.
The Court finds the
above disquisition unsound.cralaw:red
Forum shopping consists
of filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same
cause
of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of
obtaining
a favorable judgment.[5]
It may also consist in a party against whom an adverse judgment has
been
rendered in one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable opinion
in
another forum other than by appeal or special civil action of
certiorari.[6]chanrobles virtual law library
The most important factor
in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused
the
courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to
rule
on the same or related causes or grant the same or substantially the
same
reliefs. A party, however, cannot be said to have sought to
improve
his chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action where no
unfavorable
decision has ever been rendered against him in any of the cases he has
brought before the courts.[7]
In not a few cases,
this Court has laid down the yardstick to determine whether a party
violated
the rule against forum shopping as where the elements of litis
pendentia
are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata
in the other.[8]
Stated differently, there must be between the two cases (a) identity of
parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
relief
being founded on the same facts; and (c) that the identity of the two
preceding
particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action
will,
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
action under consideration.[9]
It is significant to
note that the action filed before the CSC-CAR is administrative in
nature,
dealing as it does with the proper administrative liability, if any,
which
may have been incurred by respondent for the commission of the acts
complained
of. In stark contrast, the case filed before the Office of the
Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon, which incidentally was not initiated by herein
petitioners
but by the complainant teachers, deals with the criminal accountability
of the respondent for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. Unmistakably, the rule on forum shopping would find no proper
application
since the two cases although based on the same essential facts and
circumstances
do not raise identical causes of action and issues.[10] It would,
therefore,
be absurd to require the certification of forum shopping to be attached
to the formal charge filed before the CSC, for the evil sought to be
curbed
by the proscription against forum shopping is simply not extant in the
instant case.chanrobles virtual law library
On the issue of her
having been denied administrative due process, the Court likewise finds
respondent’s claim untenable.cralaw:red
The essence of due process
is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to
present any evidence he may have in support of his defense or simply an
opportunity to be heard;[11]
or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration
of the action of ruling complained of.[12]
One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and
perhaps
even many times more creditably than oral argument, through
pleadings.
Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not even strictly applied
to administrative proceedings, and administrative due process cannot be
fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense.[13]
In fact in Pefianco
v. Moral,[14]
the Court had the occasion to rule that a respondent in an
administrative
case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations
of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed
against
him – he is entitled only to the administrative decision based on
substantial
evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunity to meet the
charges
and the evidence presented against him during the hearing of the
investigation
committee. It is the administrative resolution, not the
investigation
report, which should be the basis of any further remedies that the
losing
party in an administrative case might wish to pursue.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent had been
amply accorded the opportunity to be heard. She was required to
answer
the formal charge against her and given the chance to present evidence
in her behalf. She actively participated in the proceedings and
even
cross-examined the witnesses against her. Clearly, based on the above
jurisprudential
pronouncements the appellate court’s finding that respondent was denied
due process is utterly without basis.cralaw:red
Administrative proceedings
are governed by the “substantial evidence rule.”[15]
A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained
for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the
respondent
has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge.
As defined, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable
mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[16]
This is different from the quantum of proof required in criminal
proceedings
which necessitates a finding of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The Ombudsman, in ordering the withdrawal of the criminal
complaints
against respondent was simply saying that there is no evidence
sufficient
to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt which is a condition
sine
qua non for conviction. Ergo, the dismissal of the criminal case
will not foreclose administrative action against respondent.cralaw:red
In the instant case,
this Court is of the view that the sworn complaints of the twenty
remaining
complainants coupled with their positive testimonies in the proceedings
below, more than adequately complies with the standard of proof
required
in administrative cases. The desistance executed by three (3) out
of the twenty-three(23) original complainants is of no moment since
administrative
actions cannot be made to depend upon the will of every complainant who
may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act.[17]chanrobles virtual law library
All told, the Court
holds that respondent’s guilt in the administrative case has been
sufficiently
established and pursuant to existing Civil Service Rules and
Regulations,[18]
her dismissal from the service is warranted.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the instant
consolidated petitions are hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision
of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs
against
the respondent.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, C.J., Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
Puno, J., on official
leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]Penned
by Justice Teodoro P. Regino, concurred in by Justices Eugenio S.
Labitoria
and Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, Seventh Division. Rollo, pp. 41-57.
[2]Id.
at 46.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]Rollo,
pp. 21-22.
[4]Rollo,
p. 15.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]Leyson,
Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 134990, April 27, 2000,
331 SCRA 227.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]Bangko
Silangan Development Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110480, June
29,
2001, 360 SCRA 322; Philippine Economic Zone Authority v.
Vianzon,
G.R. No. 131020, July 20, 2000, 336 SCRA 309; Progressive
Development
Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123555, January
22,
1999, 301 SCRA 637.
[7]Roxas
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA
207.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]Manalo
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141297, October 8, 2001, 366 SCRA
752;
United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on the
Settlement
of Land Problems, G.R. No. 135945, March 7, 2001, 353 SCRA 782;
Ayala
Land, Inc. v. Valisno, G.R. No. 135899, February 2, 2000, 324
SCRA
522; Saura v. Saura, Jr. G.R. No. 136159, September 1,
1999,
313 SCRA 465; Prubrankers Association v. Prudential Bank & Trust
Company,
G.R. No. 131247, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 74.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]Benedicto
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001, 364 SCRA
334.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]Yulienco
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131692, June 10, 1999, 308 SCRA 206.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]Pilipinas
Loan Company, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R.
No.
104720, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 193; Philippine Airlines, Inc. v.
National
Labor Relations Commission, 4th Division, G.R. No. 115785,
August 4, 2000, 337 SCRA 286; Orola v. Alovera, G.R. No. 111074,
July 14, 2000, 335 SCRA 609; Tubiano v. Razo, G.R. No. 132598,
July
13, 2000, 335 SCRA 531; National Police Commission v. Bernabe, G.R.
No.
129914, May 12, 2000, 332 SCRA 74.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]Adiong
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136480, December 4, 2001, 371 SCRA
373; Vda. de Dela Cruz, et al. v. Abille, G.R. No. 130196,
February 26, 2001, 352 SCRA 691 (2001).
[13]Ocampo
v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 114683, January 18, 2000,
322
SCRA 17.
[14]G.R.
No. 132248, January 19, 2000, 322 SCRA 439.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]Ocampo
v. Ombudsman, supra, note 13.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]Western
Shipyard Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110340, May 28,
2001,
358 SCRA 257; San Juan, Jr. v. Sangalang, Adm. Matter No. P-00-1437,
Feburary
6, 2001, 351 SCRA 210.
[17]Agulan,
Jr. v. Fernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1354, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 162.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]Section
52, (A) (1) (3), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
in
the Civil Service in relation to Section 22(k), Rule IV, Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. |