Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Cesa v. OMB

    Uploaded by

    Wayne Michael Novera
    This case involved Eustaquio Cesa, who was suspended for six months as city treasurer for neglect of duty by the Office of the Ombudsman. Cesa argued his right to due process was violated because he was not given notice of the specific charges against him. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Cesa's right to due process was not violated because administrative due process simply requires an opportunity to be heard and seek reconsideration, which Cesa was given. Records showed hearings were conducted where Cesa could have presented his side.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cesa v. OMB

    Uploaded by

    Wayne Michael Novera
    50 views2 pages
    This case involved Eustaquio Cesa, who was suspended for six months as city treasurer for neglect of duty by the Office of the Ombudsman. Cesa argued his right to due process was violated because he was not given notice of the specific charges against him. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Cesa's right to due process was not violated because administrative due process simply requires an opportunity to be heard and seek reconsideration, which Cesa was given. Records showed hearings were conducted where Cesa could have presented his side.

    Original Description:

    DIgest

    Original Title

    Cesa-v.-OMB

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved Eustaquio Cesa, who was suspended for six months as city treasurer for neglect of duty by the Office of the Ombudsman. Cesa argued his right to due process was violated because he was not given notice of the specific charges against him. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Cesa's right to due process was not violated because administrative due process simply requires an opportunity to be heard and seek reconsideration, which Cesa was given. Records showed hearings were conducted where Cesa could have presented his side.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    50 views2 pages

    Cesa v. OMB

    Uploaded by

    Wayne Michael Novera
    This case involved Eustaquio Cesa, who was suspended for six months as city treasurer for neglect of duty by the Office of the Ombudsman. Cesa argued his right to due process was violated because he was not given notice of the specific charges against him. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Cesa's right to due process was not violated because administrative due process simply requires an opportunity to be heard and seek reconsideration, which Cesa was given. Records showed hearings were conducted where Cesa could have presented his side.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    CASE

    Cesa v. OMB
    NUMBER
    Date G.R. number Ponente
    96 April 30, 2008 166658 Quisumbing, J.

    Article 3, Section 2 Franchesca Paula Casanova
    Petitioners: Respondents:
    EUSTAQUIO B. CESA OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and
    COMMISSION ON AUDIT-REGION VII
    Doctrine:
    There is no denial of due process if records show that hearings were held with prior notice to
    adverse parties. Even without notice, there is no denial of procedural due process if the
    parties were given the opportunity to be heard.

    Due process in administrative proceedings simply means an opportunity to seek a
    reconsideration of the order complained of and it cannot be fully equated with that in strict
    jurisprudential sense.

    Facts:
    1. On March 5, 1998, government auditors conducted a surprise audit at the Cash
    Division of Cebu City Hall. Getting wind of the surprise audit, paymaster Rosalina G.
    Badana hurriedly left her office and, since then, never returned.
    2. Badana had cash advances of more than P216 million fraudulentlyincurred by
    presenting cash items such as payrolls and vouchers already previously credited to
    her account to coverthe balance or shortage during cash counts.
    3. On March 13, 1998, then City Mayor Alvin B. Garcia administratively charged Badana
    before the Office of theOmbudsman-Visayas (Ombudsman). the Ombudsman
    impleaded Cesa and other city officials.
    4. On August 16, 2001, the Ombudsman found Cesa and the other city officials guilty of
    neglect of duty and meted to them the penalty of six months suspension without pay.
    5. Cesa argues that there was lack of due process because the complaint filed
    againsthim was not verified.
    6. Cesa stresses that the original administrative complaint, backed by his own
    affidavit,16 was filed only against Badana. He was impleaded based only on an order
    which did not specify any charges, required to submit his counter-affidavit when
    there was no affidavit, formal charge or complaint against him, and the evidence
    against him was not divulged to him. These circumstances allegedly violate the
    Ombudsman Rules of Procedure in administrative cases. He argues that since his
    employment is his livelihood, which partakes of a constitutionallyprotected property
    right, he can only be penalized based on specific acts charged, and the Ombudsman is
    duty-bound to inform him of the cause or nature of the specific accusation against
    him.
    Issue/s: Ruling:
    1. Whether or not Cesa's right to due process violated when he was 1. No.
    suspended for six months as city treasurer.

    Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:
    1. Due Process was afforded to Cesa was given an oppurtunity to be heard.
    2. On the first issue, Ang Tibay v. The Court of Industrial Relations outlines the basic due
    process requirements inadministrative cases. Foremost are the rights to a hearing and
    submit evidence in support of one's case. Itsessence: opportunity to explain one's side
    or seek a reconsideration of the ruling.
    3. There is no denial of due process if records show that hearings were held with prior
    notice to adverse parties. Even without notice, there is no denial of procedural due
    process if the parties were given the opportunity to be heard.
    4. Due process in administrative proceedings simply means an opportunity to seek a
    reconsideration of the order complained of and it cannot be fully equated with that in
    strict jurisprudential sense.
    5. A respondent is not entitled to be informed of the preliminary findings and
    recommendations of the investigating agency; he is entitled only to a fair opportunity
    to be heard and to a decision based on substantial evidence. No more, no less.
    6. In fine,Cesa had no right to be notified of the auditing team's preliminary report
    while graft investigators were reviewing it.His contention that he was required to file
    a counter-affidavit sans a formal charge against him belies any claim of denial of due
    process.

    You might also like