Administrative Order No. 238

Sec. 37. x x x [b] The heads of departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, provinces, cities x x x shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction.’ x x x. Under the aforequoted laws, the referral of the disciplining authority (Respondent Mayor) to the City Legal Officer for investigation has to be given due course. In this case, it was in fact treated as an administrative complaint so that it can not be argued that there was no administrative case filed against the complainant in this case. x x x After the City Legal Office conducted an investigation of the administrative case against the complainant wherein the latter failed and refused to participate, the former decided the case on the basis of records and evidence available. x x x. This Office is not impressed with the respondent Mayor’s posture in defense. Contrary to what he alleged, the referral to the City Legal Officer of the matter of complainant’s refusal to report for work is not equivalent to an administrative complaint against complainant Santiago. The rule is elementary that, whether in criminal or administrative proceedings, one is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges against him or her. To properly initiate an administrative proceedings, the complaint shall be in writing, in clear, simple and concise language and in a systematic manner as to apprise the respondent of the nature of the charges against him/her, to enable him/her to prepare a defense (Section 4, Rule III, Civil Service Rules on Administrative Disciplinary Cases; underscoring supplied) .

Section 38 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 807, otherwise known as the “Civil Service Decree of the Philippines,” provides that if a prima facie case exists, the disciplining authority “shall notify the respondent in writing of the charges against the latter, x x x, and the respondent shall be allowed not less than seventy-two (72) hours after receipt of the complaint to answer the charges in writing under oath, x x x, in which he shall indicate whether or not he elects a formal investigation if his answer is not considered satisfactory.” Records disclose that complainant Santiago was merely sent a letter on April 29, 1988 by the City Legal Officer informing her that “we are giving you another five (5) days from receipt hereof to report for work, otherwise, the undersigned may be constrained to take drastic action against you.” From said letter, the City Legal Officer proceeded with an ex-parte investigation and then arrived at a resolution recommending complainant Santiago’s dismissal from the government service. Whereupon, respondent Mayor adopted said resolution and summarily dismissed complainant Santiago. The respondent Mayor cannot, on the basis of the aforesaid resolution, summarily dismiss complainant Santiago without violating Section 36 [a] of P.D. No. 87, as amended, which pertinently provides: “Section 36. Discipline. General Provisions – [a] No officer or employee of the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process . (emphasis supplied). The letter dated April 21, 1988 can hardly be considered an administrative complaint as it merely warned complainant Santiago that “drastic action” will be taken on her continuous failure to report for duty. This warning does not amount, or as respondent put it, “equal” to an administrative complaint. Solely on the basis of that letter, one cannot legally commence administrative proceedings against complainant Santiago, much more summarily imposed upon her the penalty of dismissal from office, without violating the due process clause of the Constitution. Basically, due process, as it relates to personnel disciplinary action, would require that suspension or dismissal be for cause and comes only after notice and hearing (Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1988 ed., p. 334). “While the law recognizes the right of the employer to dismiss employees in warranted cases, the law frowns upon arbitrary and whimsical exercise when employees are not accorded due process” (Tan, Jr. v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 651). This Office believes that respondent Mayor should have given complainant Santiago the opportunity to explain her side of the controversy. It may be mentioned that the records failed to show that complainant Santiago was duly notified of the “ex-parte investigation” conducted by the City Legal Officer. Thus, complainant Santiago averred: “(N)ot one among the abovementioned documents was a letter, a summons, a subpoena, a memo, or any sort of notice informing her that (1) an administrative case was filed against her or that (2) she was being summoned to an administrative investigation of any sort of case against her” (Complainant Santiago’s Memorandum, January 21, 1991, at p. 5). The letter of April 21, 1988 of the City Legal Officer is not an adequate notice contemplated by law. The due process requirement is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with at will. Its disregard is a matter of serious concern since it constitutes a safeguard of the highest order in response to a man’s innate sense of justice. Verily, it appears in the light of the above factual observations that complainant Santiago had been terminated without proper observance of due process of law. Resultantly, respondent acted in the excessive use of authority amounting to “Oppression” ( Philippine Law Dictionary , 1982 ed., at p. 430) in dismissing complainant Santiago without affording her due process. WHEREFORE, Mayor Macario A. Asistio, Jr. of Kalookan City is hereby ADMONISHED for his acts of oppression in dismissing the herein complainant without due process of law, with a stern warning that future misconduct in office will be dealt with more severely. Done in the City of Manila, this 26th day September in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-one. (Sgd.) CORAZON C. AQUINO President of the Philippines By the President: (Sgd.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Executive Secretary