June 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > June 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177802 : June 05, 2007] JOEL S. SAMANIEGO VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR'S OFFICE OF ALBAY, LEGASPI CITY :
[G.R. No. 177802 : June 05, 2007]
JOEL S. SAMANIEGO VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR'S OFFICE OF ALBAY, LEGASPI CITY
SIRS/MESDAMES:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated 5 JUNE 2007
G.R. No. 177802 - Joel S. Samaniego vs. Commission on Audit, Provincial Auditor's Office of Albay, Legaspi City.
Finding no reversible error in the assailed decision dated January 10, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89999, the Court RESOLVED to DENY this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner's contentions that the assailed CA decision is utterly without basis and that he was denied due process because no formal investigation was ever conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) are wanting in merit.
For one, the factual bases of the missing public funds and the adverse audit findings were fully supported by concrete, thorough, clear and pertinent evidence appearing on record. Indeed, the fact of missing public funds was even impliedly admitted by the petitioner no less in his letter-reply dated January 28, 2003 whereunder he requested additional time to settle his cash shortages.
The claim of denial of due process by reason of the absence of a formal investigation before the OMB is equally fuerile. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is simply the opportunity to explain one's side.[1]
Petitioner was given ample opportunity to air his side at the OMB. The circumstance that no formal investigation was conducted by that office did not deprive petitioner of his right to due process because he was given the opportunity to submit his pleadings and supporting evidence. Verily, the proceedings before the OMB were in accordance with the established procedure provided under the law.[2] For sure, petitioner not once raised as an issue the lack of formal investigation in the proceedings before the OMB. Similarly, the records of the case are bereft of any instance where it appeared that petitioner ever requested a formal investigation in the said office or objected to the absence thereof. As such, it cannot be gainsaid that the requirements of due process were not complied with.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED.
G.R. No. 177802 - Joel S. Samaniego vs. Commission on Audit, Provincial Auditor's Office of Albay, Legaspi City.
Finding no reversible error in the assailed decision dated January 10, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89999, the Court RESOLVED to DENY this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner's contentions that the assailed CA decision is utterly without basis and that he was denied due process because no formal investigation was ever conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) are wanting in merit.
For one, the factual bases of the missing public funds and the adverse audit findings were fully supported by concrete, thorough, clear and pertinent evidence appearing on record. Indeed, the fact of missing public funds was even impliedly admitted by the petitioner no less in his letter-reply dated January 28, 2003 whereunder he requested additional time to settle his cash shortages.
The claim of denial of due process by reason of the absence of a formal investigation before the OMB is equally fuerile. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is simply the opportunity to explain one's side.[1]
Petitioner was given ample opportunity to air his side at the OMB. The circumstance that no formal investigation was conducted by that office did not deprive petitioner of his right to due process because he was given the opportunity to submit his pleadings and supporting evidence. Verily, the proceedings before the OMB were in accordance with the established procedure provided under the law.[2] For sure, petitioner not once raised as an issue the lack of formal investigation in the proceedings before the OMB. Similarly, the records of the case are bereft of any instance where it appeared that petitioner ever requested a formal investigation in the said office or objected to the absence thereof. As such, it cannot be gainsaid that the requirements of due process were not complied with.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Garcia v. Pajaro, G.R. No. 141149, July 5, 2002, 384 SCRA 122, 137.
[2] Office of the Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 15, 2003.
Sec. 5 pars. (a) and (b) thereof states:
(a) If the complaint is docketed as an administrative case, the respondent shall be furnished with a copy of the affidavits and other services submitted by the complaint, and shall be ordered to file his counter-affidavit and other evidence in support of his defense, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, together with proof of service of the same on the complainant who may file his reply-affidavit within ten (10) days from receipt of the counter-affidavit of respondent;
(b) If the hearing officer finds no sufficient cause to warrant further proceedings on the basis of the affidavits and other evidence submitted by he parties, the complaint may be dismissed. Otherwise, he shall issue an Order (or Order) for any of the following purposes:
1) To direct the parties to file, within ten (10) days from receipt of the Order, their respective position papers. The position paper shall contain only those charges, defenses and other claims contained in the affidavits and pleadings filed by the parties. Any additional relevant affidavits and/or documentary evidence may be attached by the parties to their papers. On the basis of the position papers, affidavits and other pleadings filed, the Hearing Officer may consider the case submitted for resolution. x x x
