Lawyerly

GR No. 200628

2015-01-13

LEONEN, J.

The right to counsel under Section 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution applies in criminal proceedings, but not in administrative proceedings. It is a right given to persons accused of an offense during criminal investigation.[68] Any proceeding conducted by an administrative body is not part of the criminal investigation or prosecution.[69]

GR No. 187854

2013-11-12

RAY PETER O. VIVO v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT

BERSAMIN, J.

As regards the supposed denial of the petitioner's right to counsel, it is underscored that PAGCOR denied his request to re-schedule the conference before the Adjudication Committee because his counsel would not be available on the day fixed for that purpose. In its letter denying the request, the Adjudication Committee asserted that the presence of counsel was not indispensable in the conduct of its proceedings. We find nothing objectionable in the denial of the request. In an administrative proceeding like that conducted against the petitioner, a respondent has the option of engaging the services of counsel. As such, the right to counsel is not imperative because administrative investigations are themselves inquiries conducted only to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.[21]

GR No. 165442

2010-08-25

NASECO GUARDS ASSOCIATION-PEMA v. NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In simple terms, the constitutional guarantee of due process requires that a litigant be given "a day in court." It is the availability of the opportunity to be heard that determines whether or not due process was violated. A litigant may or may not avail of the opportunity to be heard but as long as such was made available to him/her, there is no violation of the due process clause. In the case of Lumiqued v. Exevea,[23] this Court declared that "[a]s long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. Moreover, this constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of."

GR No. 149548

2009-12-04

ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the doctrine that findings of fact of administrative agencies must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or preponderant.[93] If supported by substantial evidence, the factual finding of an administrative body, charged with a specific field of expertise, is conclusive and should not be disturbed.[94] Substantial evidence, which is the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before administrative or quasi-judicialbodies, is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[95]

GR No. 167916

2008-08-26

SARAH P. AMPONG v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

REYES, R.T., J.

But while a party's right to the assistance of counsel is sacred in proceedings criminal in nature, there is no such requirement in administrative proceedings. In Lumiqued v. Exevea,[32] this Court ruled that a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel. Moreover, the administrative body is under no duty to provide the person with counsel because assistance of counsel is not an absolute requirement.[33]

GR No. 177666

2008-04-30

EUGENIO R. AVENIDO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

PER CURIAM

Well-settled in our jurisdiction is the doctrine that findings of fact of administrative agencies must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or preponderant. The quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[21]

GR No. 164763

2008-02-12

ZENON R. PEREZ v. PEOPLE and SANDIGANBAYAN

REYES, R.T., J.

The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless the waiver is in writing and in the presence of counsel, is a right afforded a suspect or accused during custodial investigation. It is not an absolute right and may be invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding and, with more reason, in an administrative inquiry.[37]

GR NO. 169534

2007-07-30

BRIGIDO B. PAREDES v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

First, the quantum of evidence required in an administrative case is less than that required in a criminal case.[34] Criminal and administrative proceedings may involve similar operative facts; but each requires a different quantum of evidence. Administrative cases require only substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[35] In contrast, in Criminal Case Nos. 99-525 to 99-531, respondents are required to proffer proof beyond reasonable doubt to secure petitioner's conviction. Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other.[36] Notably, the evidence presented in the administrative case may not necessarily be the same evidence to be presented in the criminal cases. The prosecution is certainly not precluded from adducing additional evidence to discharge the burden of proof required in the criminal cases. Significantly, the prosecution had manifested that it would present testimonial evidence which was not presented in the administrative case.

AM No. 2004-19-SC

2004-11-04

RE: ALLEGED VIOLATION BY MR. EFREN ASCRATE OF CIVIL SERVICE RULES ON ABSENTEEISM

PER CURIAM

On numerous occasions, this Court did not hesitate to impose such extreme punishment on employees found guilty of grave offenses.[16] There is no reason why respondent should be treated differently.

GR No. 117040

2000-01-27

RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC

MENDOZA, J.

The decision followed the ruling in several cases involving dismissals which, although based on any of the just causes under Art. 282,[17] were effected without notice and hearing to the employee as required by the implementing rules.[18] As this Court said: "It is now settled that where the dismissal of one employee is in fact for a just and valid cause and is so proven to be but he is not accorded his right to due process, i.e., he was not furnished the twin requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard, the dismissal shall be upheld but the employer must be sanctioned for non-compliance with the requirements of, or for failure to observe, due process."[19]

	GR No. 200628 2015-01-13	MARIA THERESA G. GUTIERREZ v. COA LEONEN, J.
The right to counsel under Section 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution applies in criminal proceedings, but not in administrative proceedings. It is a right given to persons accused of an offense during criminal investigation.[68] Any proceeding conducted by an administrative body is not part of the criminal investigation or prosecution.[69]
	GR No. 187854 2013-11-12	RAY PETER O. VIVO v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT BERSAMIN, J.
As regards the supposed denial of the petitioner's right to counsel, it is underscored that PAGCOR denied his request to re-schedule the conference before the Adjudication Committee because his counsel would not be available on the day fixed for that purpose. In its letter denying the request, the Adjudication Committee asserted that the presence of counsel was not indispensable in the conduct of its proceedings. We find nothing objectionable in the denial of the request. In an administrative proceeding like that conducted against the petitioner, a respondent has the option of engaging the services of counsel. As such, the right to counsel is not imperative because administrative investigations are themselves inquiries conducted only to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.[21]
	GR No. 165442 2010-08-25	NASECO GUARDS ASSOCIATION-PEMA v. NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In simple terms, the constitutional guarantee of due process requires that a litigant be given "a day in court." It is the availability of the opportunity to be heard that determines whether or not due process was violated. A litigant may or may not avail of the opportunity to be heard but as long as such was made available to him/her, there is no violation of the due process clause. In the case of Lumiqued v. Exevea,[23] this Court declared that "[a]s long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. Moreover, this constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of."
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the doctrine that findings of fact of administrative agencies must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or preponderant.[93] If supported by substantial evidence, the factual finding of an administrative body, charged with a specific field of expertise, is conclusive and should not be disturbed.[94] Substantial evidence, which is the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before administrative or quasi-judicialbodies, is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[95]
	GR No. 167916 2008-08-26	SARAH P. AMPONG v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REYES, R.T., J.
But while a party's right to the assistance of counsel is sacred in proceedings criminal in nature, there is no such requirement in administrative proceedings. In Lumiqued v. Exevea,[32] this Court ruled that a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel. Moreover, the administrative body is under no duty to provide the person with counsel because assistance of counsel is not an absolute requirement.[33]
	GR No. 177666 2008-04-30	EUGENIO R. AVENIDO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PER CURIAM
Well-settled in our jurisdiction is the doctrine that findings of fact of administrative agencies must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or preponderant. The quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[21]
	GR No. 164763 2008-02-12	ZENON R. PEREZ v. PEOPLE and SANDIGANBAYAN REYES, R.T., J.
The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless the waiver is in writing and in the presence of counsel, is a right afforded a suspect or accused during custodial investigation. It is not an absolute right and may be invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding and, with more reason, in an administrative inquiry.[37]
	GR NO. 169534 2007-07-30	BRIGIDO B. PAREDES v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
First, the quantum of evidence required in an administrative case is less than that required in a criminal case.[34] Criminal and administrative proceedings may involve similar operative facts; but each requires a different quantum of evidence. Administrative cases require only substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[35] In contrast, in Criminal Case Nos. 99-525 to 99-531, respondents are required to proffer proof beyond reasonable doubt to secure petitioner's conviction. Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other.[36] Notably, the evidence presented in the administrative case may not necessarily be the same evidence to be presented in the criminal cases. The prosecution is certainly not precluded from adducing additional evidence to discharge the burden of proof required in the criminal cases. Significantly, the prosecution had manifested that it would present testimonial evidence which was not presented in the administrative case.
	AM No. 2004-19-SC 2004-11-04	RE: ALLEGED VIOLATION BY MR. EFREN ASCRATE OF CIVIL SERVICE RULES ON ABSENTEEISM PER CURIAM
On numerous occasions, this Court did not hesitate to impose such extreme punishment on employees found guilty of grave offenses.[16] There is no reason why respondent should be treated differently.
	GR No. 117040 2000-01-27	RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
The decision followed the ruling in several cases involving dismissals which, although based on any of the just causes under Art. 282,[17] were effected without notice and hearing to the employee as required by the implementing rules.[18] As this Court said: "It is now settled that where the dismissal of one employee is in fact for a just and valid cause and is so proven to be but he is not accorded his right to due process, i.e., he was not furnished the twin requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard, the dismissal shall be upheld but the employer must be sanctioned for non-compliance with the requirements of, or for failure to observe, due process."[19]

ARSENIO P. LUMIQUED v. APOLINIO G. EXEVEA