Autencio v. Manara| G.R. No. 152752 | January 19, 2005 | J.

Panganiban

Petitioner: Inocelia Autencio

Respondent: City Administrator Rodel Manara and the City of Cotabato
Topic: Administrative Procedure; Due Process

Summary: Inocelia Autencio was charged with dishonesty and misconduct. She was found guilty by
the lower courts. Upon appeal to the SC, she reiterated her defense that she had waived her right to
present her evidence at a formal hearing and agreed to submit the case for resolution, only because
the City Mayor said that she could be held liable only for negligence. Thus, there was
misrepresentation as she was misled into waiving her right to a formal hearing. The Court ruled that
the petitioner was afforded due process. In administrative cases, a fair and reasonable opportunity to
explain one’s side suffices to meet the requirements of due process. A formal or trial type hearing is
not always necessary. For the purpose of ascertaining the truth, an investigation will be conducted,
during which technical rules applicable to judicial proceedings need not always be adhered to. And
where the party has the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured.

FACTS:

 December 1996: City Administrator Manara filed a complaint against Inocelia Autencio with the
Office of the City Mayor
o The Complaint was for dishonesty and misconduct, alleging that:
 Autencio ordered Riza Bravo (City Assessor’s Office employee) to change the
payroll of seven casual employees. Upon petitioner’s orders, she made it appear
that the employees worked for the whole months of September and October
even if they only worked for five days and two weeks, respectively
 Additionally, she told the employees that one-half of their salaries for
September would be deducted as contributions for their office Chirstmas party,
but in reality collected these amounts for herself.
 June 1997: After hearing, the Office for Legal Services issued a resolution which was approved by
the City Mayor Badoy, and she was declared guilty of misconduct in office for allowing
regularities. The charge of dishonesty was dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence.
o Penalty: force resignation with forfeiture of retirement benefits except for earned leave
 June 1998: Upon appeal, the Civil Service Commission modified the initial decision to grave
misconduct and the petitioner was dismissed for cause, with all its accessories
 Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the CSC, alleging that she had waived her
right to present her evidence at a formal hearing and agreed to submit the case for resolution,
only because the City Mayor said that she could be held liable only for negligence
 September 1999: CSC denied her MR
 September 2001: CA affirmed the CSC Resolutions
 o She filed an MR with the CA. The then incumbent City Mayor, Sema, signed a
Manifestation stating that based on the records, petitioner had been misled into waiving
her right to a formal hearing. This MR was still denied by the CA.

WON petitioner was deprived of due process—NO

Petitioner: Reiterates that she waived her right only because she was made to believe that she would
only be held liable for simple negligence. There was misrepresentation as she was deceived to the point
of waiving her right to present evidence.

1. Government officials are presumed to have regularly performed their functions.

a. There was no evidence presented on how the City Mayor knew about the supposed
misrepresentation, especially since Mayor Sema (the one who signed the Manifestation)
was not the city mayor at the time of the investigation of petitioner’s case
b. Fraud is never presumed and should be established by clear and convincing evidence.
No evidence was presented in the case at bar, aside from the Manifestation.
2. Petitioner waived her right to raise the issue of the respondent’s alleged misrepresentation
a. In her original appeal to the CSC, petitioner did not mention the representation. She
merely questioned the harshness of the penalty imposed by the City Government
3. Complainants in administrative cases are akin to simple witnesses. Regardless of their
desistance or representations, court will not desist from imposing the appropriate disciplinary
sanction, if the evidence so warrants. Administrative proceedings are similar to criminal
prosecutions in the sense that no compromise may be entered into between the parties as
regards the penal sanctions
4. CA did not err in ruling that petitioner afforded due process. In administrative cases, a fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side suffices to meet the requirements of due
process. A formal or trial type hearing is not always necessary. For the purpose of ascertaining
the truth, an investigation will be conducted, during which technical rules applicable to
judicial proceedings need not always be adhered to. And where the party has the opportunity
to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, defects in procedural
due process may be cured.
a. In the case at bar, petitioner received sufficient information which enabled her to
prepare her defense
b. She filed her answer controverting the charges against her and submitted Affidavits of
personnel in the Assessor’s Office to support her claim of innocence
c. She participated in the prehearing conference with the assistance of her counsel
d. Finally, she was able to appeal the ruling of City Mayor Badoy to the CSC, and then to
the CA
5. The findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected, so long as they are
supported by substantial evidence. The decisions of the CSC and the CA finding petitioner guilty
of the administrative charges are supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition: The petition is denied.