Barcelona V Lim

G.R. No.
189171 : June 3, 2014

EDILBERTO L. BARCELONA, Petitioner, v. DAN JOEL LIM and RICHARD TAN,
Respondents.
SERENO, C.J.:
FACTS:
On 14 August 2000, respondent businessman Dan Joel Lim (Lim), the owner of Top
Gun Billiards, filed a Sinumpaang Salaysay (sworn statement) with the Criminal
Intelligence Division of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Lim claimed as
follows: (1) his employees, Arnel E.Ditan and Pilipino Ubante, were influenced by
petitioner to file a labor complaint against Lim; and (2) petitioner, then an NLRC
officer, demanded 20,000 for the settlement of the labor case filed against Lim. On
the strength of this sworn statement, the NBI organized an entrapment operation
against petitioner.
On 16 August 2000, Lim informed the NBI that petitioner would drop by Top Gun
Billiards around seven oclock in the evening, expecting to receive the 20,000
petitioner was demanding from him; otherwise, petitioner would order that Top Gun
Billiards be closed. After Lim handed him the marked bills, petitioner began counting
them. The latter was arrested by the NBI right when he was about to put the money
in his bag.
After being duly informed of his constitutional rights, petitioner was brought to the
NBI office where he was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted. Thereafter, he
underwent ultraviolet light examination. The Certification of the NBI-Forensic
Chemistry Division stated that his hands "showed the presence of Yellow
Fluorescent Specks and Smudges," and that "similar examinations made on the
money bills showed the presence of yellow fluorescent specks and smudges.
NBI Director Federico M. Opinion, Jr. recommended the prosecution of petitioner for
robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and violation of Republic
Act No. (R.A.) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The NBI filed the
Complaint. Finding probable cause, the City Prosecutor filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila an Information against petitioner for the crime of robbery.
Finding a prima facie case against petitioner, Chairperson Seres issued
Administrative Order No. 9-02, formally charging him with dishonesty and grave
misconduct.
The Board resolved the administrative case ex parte. It found that petitioner had
been caught red-handed in the entrapment operation. His guilt having been
substantially established, the Board found him guilty of dishonesty and grave
misconduct. Upon approval of this recommendation by NLRC Chairperson Seres,
petitioner was dismissed from service.
Petitioner appealed to the CSC.
Petitioner further claims that even before Chairperson Seres formally charged him
with dishonesty and grave misconduct, the former had already filed an urgent
request for an emergency leave of absence because of the alarming threats being
made against him and the members of his family.
Petitioner asked the CSC to nullify the Order of Chairperson Seres. The Order barred
petitioner from entering the NLRC premises a month before the hearing conducted
by the Board. He then questioned its impartiality. Six years after petitioner had filed
his Appeal Memorandum, the CSC dismissed it.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review, but it was dismissed by the CA.
Hence, this Petition praying for the reversal of the Decision and Resolution of the
appellate court and the dismissal of the administrative Complaint filed against
petitioner.
ISSUES: Whether the factual findings of the CSC are supported by evidence;
Whether the right of petitioner to the speedy disposition of his case has been
violated by the CSC;
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is sustained.
POLITICAL LAW: due process of law
Contrary to the assertions of petitioner, Chairperson Seres did not act as the
formers accuser, judge and executioner. To be clear, the accusers of petitioner were
Lim and Tan, while his judge was an independent Board formed to investigate his
case. This Court is aware that the Board only had the power to recommend, and
that that latters recommendation was still subject to the approval of the
Chairperson. Still, petitioner cannot claim that he was denied due process on this
basis alone, because the remedy to appeal to the proper administrative bodythe
CSC in this casewas still made available to him.
This Court finds that both Chairperson Seres and the Board essentially complied
with the procedure laid down in the Civil Service Rules. Where due process is
present, the administrative decision is generally sustained. Mangubat v. De Castro,
246 Phil. 620 (1988).
The claim of petitioner that he was denied due process is negated by the
circumstances of the case at bar.
The Report/Recommendation of the Board shows that both complainant and
respondent were given the opportunity to be heard by the Board and to adduce
their respective sets of evidence, which were duly considered and taken into
account in its Decision.
POLITICAL LAW: Civil Service Rules
Petitioner further claims that Chairperson Seres violated Section 12 of the Civil
Service Rules when the latter dispensed with the requirement of conducting a
preliminary investigation. It is important to note that this preliminary investigation
required by Section 12 of the Civil Service Rules is not the same as that required in
criminal cases. Section 12 defines a preliminary investigation of administrative

cases in the Civil Service as an "ex parte examination of records and documents
submitted by the complainant and the person complained of, as well as documents
readily available from other government offices." Petitioner presents no evidence to
prove that either Chairperson Seres or the Board failed to examine these records. In
fact, the records show that, on 28 September 2000, Lim and Tan appeared in the
preliminary investigation conducted by the Board to confirm their sworn statements
and the criminal cases they had filed against petitioner. That he submitted no
documents for consideration in the preliminary investigation was his choice.
According to petitioner, no formal charge was ever filed against him as mandated
by Section 16 of the Civil Service Rules. He now claims that Chairperson Seres had
no right to place him under preventive suspension, because Section 19 of the Civil
Service Rules requires that a formal charge be served on petitioner before an order
of preventive suspension may be issued. The provision reads:
SECTION 19. Preventive Suspension. Upon petition of the complainant or motu
proprio, the proper disciplining authority may issue an order of preventive
suspension upon service of the Formal Charge, or immediately thereafter to any
subordinate officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if the
charge involves:
a. dishonesty;
b. oppression;
c. grave misconduct;
d. neglect in the performance of duty; or
e. If there are reasons to believe that the respondent is guilty of charges which
would warrant his removal from the service.
An order of preventive suspension may be issued to temporarily remove the
respondent from the scene of his misfeasance or malfeasance and to preclude the
possibility of exerting undue influence or pressure on the witnesses against him or
tampering of documentary evidence on file with his Office.
In lieu of preventive suspension, for the same purpose, the proper disciplining
authority or head of office, may reassign respondent to other units of the agency
during the formal hearings.
In this case, the Order was the formal charge. It was served on petitioner, but he
refused to receive it. He claims that on 27 September 2000, or a month before the
hearing conducted by the Board, Chairperson Seres barred him from entering the
NLRC premises. Petitioner was thereby denied access to evidence and witnesses
that could support his case. But, as revealed by Section 19, Chairperson Seres had
the right to issue an Order of preventive suspension pending investigation by the
Board, because petitioner was being charged with dishonesty and grave
misconduct.
Moreover, the Order of Chairperson Seres preventing petitioner from entering the
latters office was also valid under Section 19. This Order was meant to preclude
petitioner from possibly exerting undue influence or pressure on the witnesses
against him or to prevent him from tampering with documentary evidence on file
with his office. This preventive measure is sanctioned by law.
Lastly, the CSC has the power and the authority to amend the Civil Service Rules
whenever it deems the amendment necessary. The insinuation of petitioner that this
change was made for the sole purpose of hurting his appeal is a mere product of his
imagination. The CSC is under no obligation to review all the cases before it and, on
the basis thereof, decide whether or not to amend its internal rules.
We note, though, that the authority of the CSC to amend the rules does not give it
the authority to apply the new provision retroactively. The consequence of an illegal
retroactive application of a provision is discussed below.
POLITICAL LAW: speedy disposition of cases
Section 16, Rule III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, reads:
Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before
all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
The right to a speedy disposition of cases is guaranteed by the Constitution. The
concept of speedy disposition is flexible. The fact that it took the CSC six years to
resolve the appeal of petitioner does not, by itself, automatically prove that he was
denied his right to the speedy disposition of his case. After all, a mere mathematical
reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient, as the facts and circumstances
peculiar to the case must also be considered. Binay v. Sandiganbayan, 374 Phil. 413
The right to a speedy trial, as well as other rights conferred by the Constitution or
statute, may be waived except when otherwise expressly provided by law. Ones
right to the speedy disposition of his case must therefore be asserted. Due to the
failure of petitioner to assert this right, he is considered to have waived it.

Barcelona V Lim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barcelona V Lim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barcelona V Lim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

189171 : June 3, 2014

criminal cases. Section 12 defines a preliminary investigation of administrative

You might also like