Scribd
Upload
496 views2 pages

AdminLaw - Garcia Vs Molina

This document summarizes two cases regarding administrative due process for two employees of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) who were charged with misconduct and suspended without pay. Both employees denied the charges and argued they were suspended without due process. The Court of Appeals agreed that the GSIS failed to conduct a proper preliminary investigation before bringing charges. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding that administrative proceedings must respect basic due process rights, including the right to a preliminary investigation prior to formal charges being made.

Uploaded by

Xander 4th
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
496 views2 pages

AdminLaw - Garcia Vs Molina

This document summarizes two cases regarding administrative due process for two employees of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) who were charged with misconduct and suspended without pay. Both employees denied the charges and argued they were suspended without due process. The Court of Appeals agreed that the GSIS failed to conduct a proper preliminary investigation before bringing charges. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding that administrative proceedings must respect basic due process rights, including the right to a preliminary investigation prior to formal charges being made.

Uploaded by

Xander 4th
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TOPIC: ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS

G.R. No. 157383. August 10, 2010.*


WINSTON F. GARCIA, in his capacity as President and General Manager of GSIS, petitioner, vs. MARIO I. MOLINA and ALBERT
M. VELASCO, respondents.

G.R. No. 174137. August 10, 2010.*


WINSTON F. GARCIA, in his capacity as President and General Manager of the Government Service Insurance System,
petitioner, vs. MARIO I. MOLINA and ALBERT M. VELASCO, respondents.

FACTS:

Molina and Velasco are both Attorney V of the GSIS. They received two separate Memoranda from Petitioner charging them
with grave misconduct. Velasco, in addition was also accused of violating Rules of Office Decorum and gross insubordination.
Both were suspended for 90 days without pay.

In their answer, both respondents denied the charges and averred that Petitioner acted in bad faith in charging them falsely.
They also opposed to their suspension for lack of factual and legal basis. Respondents filed an Urgent Petition for to Lift
Preventive Suspension Order before Civil Service Commission (CSC) as well as Petition to Transfer Investigation. CSC failed to
resolve both motions.

Respondents filed with CA a Special Civil Action for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for TRO. CA granted the Petition and
agreed that the investigation should be done by CSC and not GSIS.

ISSUE: WON the conduct of Preliminary Investigation in Administrative proceeding is an essential requisite to the conduct of
adjudication

HELD: YES

Although administrative procedural rules are less stringent and often applied more liberally, administrative proceedings are not
exempt from basic and fundamental procedural principles such as the right to due process in investigations and hearings.

The formal Memoranda separately issued to the respondents are the formal charges against them and these formal charges are
done without preliminary or fact finding investigation. Petitioners claimed that preliminary investigations are not required in
indictments in flagranti as in this case. This was opposed by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the CSC Rules does not specifically provide that a formal charge without the requisite preliminary investigation is null
and void. However, as clearly outlined above, upon receipt of a complaint which is sufficient in form and substance, the
disciplining authority shall require the person complained of to submit a Counter-Affidavit/Comment under oath within three
days from receipt. Which means that this should be done prior to the issuance of a formal charge and the comment required is
different from the Answer that the respondents may file.

The rule is the same in quasi judicial and administrative proceeding wherein if there is violation of basic constitutional rights
which includes right to due process courts are ousted from their jurisdiction and any decision shall be rendered VOID.

Due process in administrative proceedings has been recognized to include the following:

1. The right to actual or constructive notice to the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondents legal
rights;
2. A real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in
ones favor, and to defend ones 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy