January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177964 : January 13, 2010] HERCULES P. GUZMAN V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:
[G.R. No. 177964 : January 13, 2010]
HERCULES P. GUZMAN V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 13 January 2010:
G.R. No. 177964 (Hercules P. Guzman v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.). - This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1] dated January 11, 2007 and the Resolution[2] dated May 17, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA)in CA-G.R. SP No. 90913.
Petitioner Hercules P. Guzman was employed as a professor by respondent University of the East, College of Law. Cinderella Acuna, a law student, filed an administrative complaint for harassment against Guzman, alleging that she was given a final grade of "X" in Succession, taken in the first semester of the school year 1996-1997, because he wanted to have a date with her; that he asked her to take her removal examinations at Max's, at A&W, and at some other restaurants: and that in Land Titles taken under Guzman in 1994, the latter asked her to visit him in his office, where he told her that she was his type and that he was willing to give her money and a house.
In his counter-affidavit, Guzman denied Acuna's allegations, although he admitted that he asked her to take her examinations at Max's and at A&W. He also admitted that Acuna earlier went to his office, but claimed that she went there with her boyfriend, not to take her examination but to solicit funds for the bar operations. He also claimed to have been the subject of persecution by the Dean of the College of Law.
After investigation, the Ad Hoc Committee of respondent University found Guzman to have improperly conducted school-related activities outside the school premises, indicative of sexually motivated intentions, in violation of the University's policy of providing its students with an environment free from sexual harassment and from fear of its occurrence. Consequently, a penalty of one (1) year suspension was imposed on Guzman, with a stern warning that a repetition thereof would be dealt with greater severity.
Aggrieved, Guzman instituted an action for illegal suspension before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter, in his decision, found a valid around for the suspension, but reduced the period to six (6) months.
Both Guzman and the University appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a Decision dated November 25, 2004, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, but modified it by declaring as valid the one (1) year suspension imposed upon Guzman.
Guzman appealed to the CA: The appellate court, however, affirmed the November 25, 2004 Decision of the NLRC. Hence, this petition ascribing error on the part of the CA in not finding that his constitutional right to due process was violated when (1) he was made to appear before a tribunal that was partial and invalidly constituted; (2) his administrative liability was made to depend on self-serving allegations and inferences; and (3) he was made liable for administrative offenses not included in the original charge.
This petition should be denied.
Due process in administrative proceedings has also been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings that may affect respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.[3] In resolving administrative cases, the conduct of a full-blown trial is not indispensable to dispense justice to the parties. The requirement of notice and hearing does not connote full adversarial proceedings. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[4]
Undeniably, petitioner was amply afforded his right to due process. As correctly observed by the CA, petitioner was heard through the counter-affidavit and the memorandum he filed in response to the charges against him. He had the opportunity to clarify his assertions through his memorandum, seeking reconsideration of the decision of the Office of the President of the University. His grievance was well threshed out before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, from the complaint to the appeal and up to the motion for reconsideration of the adverse rulings against him. More importantly, petitioner should not be allowed to question the constitution of the Ad Hoc Committee that heard the administrative complaint after receiving an unfavorable judgment consequent to his active participation in the proceedings before it.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE for lack of merit. The assailed. January 11, 2007 Decision and the May 17, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 13th day of January 2010.
G.R. No. 177964 (Hercules P. Guzman v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.). - This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1] dated January 11, 2007 and the Resolution[2] dated May 17, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA)in CA-G.R. SP No. 90913.
Petitioner Hercules P. Guzman was employed as a professor by respondent University of the East, College of Law. Cinderella Acuna, a law student, filed an administrative complaint for harassment against Guzman, alleging that she was given a final grade of "X" in Succession, taken in the first semester of the school year 1996-1997, because he wanted to have a date with her; that he asked her to take her removal examinations at Max's, at A&W, and at some other restaurants: and that in Land Titles taken under Guzman in 1994, the latter asked her to visit him in his office, where he told her that she was his type and that he was willing to give her money and a house.
In his counter-affidavit, Guzman denied Acuna's allegations, although he admitted that he asked her to take her examinations at Max's and at A&W. He also admitted that Acuna earlier went to his office, but claimed that she went there with her boyfriend, not to take her examination but to solicit funds for the bar operations. He also claimed to have been the subject of persecution by the Dean of the College of Law.
After investigation, the Ad Hoc Committee of respondent University found Guzman to have improperly conducted school-related activities outside the school premises, indicative of sexually motivated intentions, in violation of the University's policy of providing its students with an environment free from sexual harassment and from fear of its occurrence. Consequently, a penalty of one (1) year suspension was imposed on Guzman, with a stern warning that a repetition thereof would be dealt with greater severity.
Aggrieved, Guzman instituted an action for illegal suspension before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter, in his decision, found a valid around for the suspension, but reduced the period to six (6) months.
Both Guzman and the University appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a Decision dated November 25, 2004, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, but modified it by declaring as valid the one (1) year suspension imposed upon Guzman.
Guzman appealed to the CA: The appellate court, however, affirmed the November 25, 2004 Decision of the NLRC. Hence, this petition ascribing error on the part of the CA in not finding that his constitutional right to due process was violated when (1) he was made to appear before a tribunal that was partial and invalidly constituted; (2) his administrative liability was made to depend on self-serving allegations and inferences; and (3) he was made liable for administrative offenses not included in the original charge.
This petition should be denied.
Due process in administrative proceedings has also been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings that may affect respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.[3] In resolving administrative cases, the conduct of a full-blown trial is not indispensable to dispense justice to the parties. The requirement of notice and hearing does not connote full adversarial proceedings. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[4]
Undeniably, petitioner was amply afforded his right to due process. As correctly observed by the CA, petitioner was heard through the counter-affidavit and the memorandum he filed in response to the charges against him. He had the opportunity to clarify his assertions through his memorandum, seeking reconsideration of the decision of the Office of the President of the University. His grievance was well threshed out before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, from the complaint to the appeal and up to the motion for reconsideration of the adverse rulings against him. More importantly, petitioner should not be allowed to question the constitution of the Ad Hoc Committee that heard the administrative complaint after receiving an unfavorable judgment consequent to his active participation in the proceedings before it.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE for lack of merit. The assailed. January 11, 2007 Decision and the May 17, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 13th day of January 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, concurring; rollo, pp. 20-30.
[2] Id. at 31-32.
[3] Montoya v. Varilla, G.R. No. 180146, December 18,2008, 574 SCRA 831, 842.
[4] Equitable PCI Banking Corporation v. RCBC Capital Corporation, G.R. No. 182248, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 858, 891.
