Q&A

Question: Allegedly, JA Contractors was not a firm qualified to bid for DPWH projects but it won and
the DPWH officials responsible were charged with grave misconduct who sought for a decision
based on the records submitted. Five months later, they were re-issued the same Formal Charge, to
which they demanded that a formal investigation be conducted and simultaneously, they filed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition which was granted by the court saying that the officials’
administrative due process were violated. The proponents of the case argued that they were
estopped from raising the untimely filing of one of the petitions by reason of their silence or failure
to object to the same before the RTC and ultimately asking for a decision on the records.

Were the respondents' due process rights violated?

Answer: No, they were not because in administrative proceedings, procedural due process simply
means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of through a hearing or based on pleadings. But, the court incorrectly
exempted them though from compliance with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies
when it accepted to rule based on the records. They are therefore required to go through the full
course of the administrative process where they are still left with remedies and the case should be
remanded to the DPWH. (Ebdane vs. Apurillo, 2015)