342 Phil. 601
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
“On February 6, 1992, Mary Elaine Bonito filed a complaint against private respondent Jose Valeriano, then an employee of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), for allegedly receiving P5,000.00 for the processing of her papers with the POEA x x x.After considering all the evidence, it was not lost on the Ombudsman that the Administrative Complaints Committee, of which petitioner was a member, in conducting the investigation respecting Bonito’s complaint on the very day that private respondent Valeriano was furnished a copy of said complaint, violated the five-day bar imposed on any administrative investigation as provided in Section 38, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987. Thus ruled the Ombudsman:
On February 6, 1992, Bonito withdrew her complaint against Valeriano for the reason that the amount was returned through Romeo Solis, brother-in-law of Bonito.
Private respondent Valeriano was furnished a copy of the complaint on February 6, 1992, and was given a period of 72 hours from receipt of the notice to file his written answer.
On February 6, 1992, the POEA Administrative Complaint Committee, composed of Atty. Vicente Jariol as Chairman, and Attys. Josefina Bilar and [petitioner] Luvimino Casuela as members, set the case for hearing at 11:00 a.m. on the same day for the reason that Bonito was set to leave for overseas employment at 10:15 p.m. of that day x x x. Petitioner was preventively suspended effective February 10, 1992 x x x.
The case was set for further hearings on February 14, 18, 21, March 2, 10 and 19, 1992. On February 21, 1992, Romeo Solis, brother-in-law of Bonito, and Nony Albarracin, executed a sworn statement ‘absolving Mr. Jose L. Valeriano for whatever liability be it administratively and/or whatsoever, for his role only was to advise us that POEA gives assistance to all overseas contract workers’ x x x.
In a Decision dated May 4, 1992, signed by then POEA Deputy Administrator and Officer-in-Charge Manuel Imson, private respondent was ‘declared liable for acts of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Accordingly, private respondent is adjudged and meted out the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service pursuant to Section 23 (a), Rule XIV of the CSC Omnibus Rules’ x x x.
The decision of the POEA was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in an Order dated November 27, 1992 x x x.
On August 12, 1992, private respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner and the other members of the Administrative Complaint[s] Committee for willful violation of Section 36, Article IX of the Civil Service Law.
Petitioner and the other members of the Administrative Complaint[s] Committee filed with the Ombudsman a joint comment on the complaint, alleging that they acted within the scope of their functions and in good faith.”[4]
“x x x On February 6, 1992, Valeriano was furnished a copy of the complaint-affidavit with the instruction to file his answer within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof. This notwithstanding, the hearing of the case was set at 11:30 a.m. of the same day, February 6, 1993, with the warning that should Valeriano fail to attend the scheduled hearing, it will be considered as a waiver for Valeriano to cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses and the committee will proceed with the hearing for the reception of evidence of the complainant x x x.‘Sec. 38. The investigation shall be held not earlier than five days nor later than ten days from the date of receipt of respondent’s answer.’ x x x
x x x
x x x Respondent Valeriano was furnished a copy of the complaint on February 6, 1993. While he was given 72 hours from receipt to submit his answer, the hearing of the complaint was held on the same day in flagrant violation of Rule XIV, Sec. 38 of the Rules Implementing Book V of Execution Order No. 292 and other pertinent Civil Service Laws, which provides:
Such acts should not be countenanced. As lawyers, the members of the Administrative Complaints Committee should be familiar with existing rules in the hearing of administrative cases. The act of the Committee in conducting hearing on the case even before respondent could file his answer shows excessive use of authority if not unlawful behaviour, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.”[5]Petitioner was consequently found liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties and meted out the penalty of three (3) months suspension pursuant to Section 23 (p), Rule XIV of the CSC Omnibus Rules and Regulations.
[Petitioner] Casuela argued that since the complaint against him was limited to oppression and rendering a judgment through negligence, he cannot be held liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. This claim is no more than a vagrant assertion for the simple reason that it is well settled in this jurisdiction that the real nature of the offense charged is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the law alleged to have been violated but by actual recital of the facts in the complaint. x x x In the instant case, it is undisputed fact that the initial hearing was conducted by the Committee before [petitioner] x x x could file his answer. It is also an uncontrovertible fact that the initial hearing of the case was made in total disregard of Sec. 38 of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 which clearly shows inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties on the part of herein respondent.Still unable to accept the postulations of the Ombudsman, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari with the following assignment of errors:
It is also argued that [petitioner], as a member of the Administrative Complaints Committee, did not deprive complainant of his right to due process xxx. When the members of the Committee acted immediately upon the complaint of Ms. Bonito x x x they acted perfectly within the bounds of their duties x x x. The innocence or guilt of [private respondent Valeriano] and as to whether or not due process was accorded him is not the issue in this case but whether or not there is something amiss in the conduct of the members of the Committee in the investigation of the case. As earlier stated, it is an undisputed fact that the initial hearing was conducted even before complainant could file his answer and the same was made in total disregard of Sec. 38 of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. While it is a laudable act on the part of the members of the Committee to immediately act on a complaint to protect and give immediate assistance to Filipino overseas workers, it is equally deplorable not to recognize the rights of people being complained of. If this Office is swayed by the argument that the provision of Sec. 38 of the Implementing Rules of Book V of Executive Order No. 292 should be relaxed in this particular case, it would render nugatory if not illusory the aforementioned provision of law.
This office is not unaware that mistakes committed by public officers are not actionable absent any clear showing that they were motivated by bad faith. It is, however, very clear in the records that while complainant was given 72 hours within which to file his answer, the initial hearing was conducted on the same day in flagrant violation of Sec. 38 of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. As stated in our resolution, such act shows excessive use of authority if not unlawful behavior, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.
This complaint is not frivolous x x x. This Office cannot overstress the need for a more circumspect and proper behavior on the part of x x x hearing officers upon whom the life of a man depends.
x x x
As stated earlier, while this Office fully appreciates the x x x giving [of] immediate assistance and protection to overseas workers[7] x x x it is equally deplorable not to give protection to the rights of the people being complained of. It is the perception of this Office that Sec. 38 of the Implementing Rules of Book V of Executive Order No. 292 is mandatory and not merely directory.”
“Petitioner’s claim that ‘the Ombudsman virtually deprived [him] of his right to due process by failing to inform [him] of the charges against him’ x x x is bereft of merit. In the first place, as petitioner admits he had raised the alleged '‘lack of sufficient opportunity to be informed of the charges against him in a motion for reconsideration.’ This Honorable Court has repeatedly stressed that the requirements of due process are complied [with] when a party is heard on a motion for reconsideration (Dormitorio v. Fernandez, 72 SCRA 388; Cebu Institute v. Minister of Labor, 113 SCRA 257; Tajonera v. Lamoroza, 110 SCRA 438; Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764). Secondly, the Constitution has vested the Ombudsman with plenary authority in the scope of his investigation.Petitioner skirts the kernel issue of his undisputed participation in an investigation conducted in violation of the five-day bar rule under Section 38, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292, and conveniently harks on the alleged violation of his right to due process. Petitioner’s evasive stance, however, does not impede our clear perception of the fact that petitioner did participate in the investigation conducted by the Administrative Complaints Committee respecting Bonito’s complaint against private respondent Valeriano, which investigation was held on the very same day that private respondent Valeriano was furnished a copy of Bonito’s complaint, in violation of the five-day bar rule mandated by the Rules Implementing E.O. No. 292. The Ombudsman correctly took cognizance of these circumstances and was undeniably empowered to investigate the same and impose the proper administrative sanctions upon the culpable parties. Petitioner claims that the Ombudsman has been inconsistent in citing the basis for petitioner’s liability. This claim is patently groundless. Both the Resolution dated July 22, 1993 and the Order dated October 3, 1993, clearly spelled out the basis for penalizing petitioner with a three-month suspension: petitioner, as member of the Administrative Complaints Committee, violated the five-day bar rule under Section 38, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292.
‘Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any reason, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.’ (Article XI, Constitution)
Under the foregoing constitutional provision, the Ombudsman may investigate a matter that tends to show that an act is illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient motu proprio, or even if not raised by a complainant. Hence, even if the private respondent did not expressly rise the non-compliance of the provisions of the Administrative Code, the Ombudsman may impose the proper sanctions for the non-compliance. As noted by the Ombudsman in his Order dated October 5, 1993 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, ‘there is something amiss in the conduct of the members of the Committee in the investigation of the case [against private respondent Valeriano].’ The flaw in the investigation was the cause for the imposition of the penalty. Hence, contrary to the contentions of petitioner, the Ombudsman did not maintain inconsistent theories on the liability of petitioner. His liability as well as those of the other members of the Administrative Complaints Committee arose by reason of the non-compliance with the provisions of the Administrative Code on administrative disciplinary proceeding.”[11]
“x x x [I]t is undisputed fact that the initial hearing was conducted even before complainant could file his answer and the same was made in total disregard of Sec. 38 of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. While it is a laudable act on the part of the members of the Committee to immediately act on a complaint to protect and give immediate assistance to Filipino overseas workers, it is equally deplorable not to recognize the rights of people being complained of. If this Office is swayed by the argument that the provision of Sec. 38 of the Implementing Rules of Book V of Executive Order No. 292 should be relaxed in this particular case, it would render nugatory if not illusory the aforementioned provision of law.In other words, the Ombudsman was not per se praising petitioner’s acts; rather, the Ombudsman had, before criticizing the arbitrary holding of the investigation in violation of the five-day bar rule, attempted to temper its criticism by acknowledging the nobility of the intention of the Administrative Complaints Committee to expediently act on Bonito’s grievances against private respondent Valeriano. But certainly, the effort of the Ombudsman to balance its disciplinary role with a scrupulous sensitivity to its fellow government agency’s responsive action in a seemingly extraordinary situation, cannot be deemed an absolution of the fatal flaws that taint such action.
xxx
x x x [W]hile this Office fully appreciates the laudable acts of the respondents in giving immediate assistance and protection to overseas workers, but it is equally deplorable not to give protection to the rights of people being complained of. x x x”[12]