Case Digest: Dadubo vs. CSC; 223 SCRA 747

         Due Process | Constitutional Law


Facts:
Petitioners Lolita A. Dadubo and Rosario B. Cidro, employees of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), faced charges of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service due to an unposted withdrawal of P60,000.00 from a savings account. Dadubo processed the withdrawal as the acting teller, and Cidro, the cash supervisor, received the documents. However, a discrepancy arose, leaving the balance unaccounted for.

DBP found Dadubo guilty of dishonesty and embezzlement, resulting in her dismissal, while Cidro was found guilty of gross neglect of duty and fined. Dadubo appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which upheld DBP's decision. The Civil Service Commission later reduced Dadubo's penalty to a six-month suspension, considering her alterations on the ledger card but holding Cidro responsible for the fraud. DBP sought reconsideration, and the Commission thru a resolution affirmed the earlier findings of the DBP as to Dadubo's guilt but treated her admission as a mitigating circumstance.

Issue:
WoN the Commission's resolution failed to comply with constitutional requirements of due process.

Held: The petitioner's invocation of due process is without merit. Her complaint that she was not sufficiently informed of the charges against her has no basis. While the rules governing Judicial trials should be observed as much as possible, their strict observance is not indispensable in administrative cases. 13 As this Court has held, "the standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain latitude as long as the element of fairness is not ignored." 

The essence of due process is distilled in the immortal cry of Themistocles to Eurybiades: "Strike, but hear me first!" Less dramatically, it simply connotes an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner had several opportunities to be heard and to present evidence that she was not guilty of embezzlement but only of failure to comply with the tellering procedure. Not only did she testify at her formal investigation but she also filed a motion for reconsideration with the DBP, then appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and later elevated the case to the Civil Service Commission. Having been given all these opportunities to be heard, which she fully availed of, she cannot now complain that she was denied due process.

Principle:
The charge against the respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted with the precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is apprised of the substance of the charge against him; what is controlling is the allegation of facts complained of, not the designation of the offense. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered