VOL.

437, AUGUST 31, 2004 357

Velasquez vs. Hernandez
*
G.R. No. 150732. August 31, 2004.

TOMAS G. VELASQUEZ, Officer-In-Charge, Office of the

School Superintendent, DECS-Division of Abra;
MARIETTA BERSALONA, Chairperson, DECS-Fact
Finding Committee; EDUARDO RUPERTO, JOAQUIN
PILIEN and LUZ CURBI, Members, DECS-Fact Finding
Committee, petitioners, vs. HELEN B. HERNANDEZ,
respondent.
*
G.R. No. 151095. August 31, 2004.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. HELEN B.

HERNANDEZ, respondent.

Remedial Law; Forum Shopping; Forum shopping also consists

in a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in
one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in
another forum other than by appeal or special civil action of
certiorari.·Forum shopping consists of filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a
favorable judgment. It may also consist in a party against whom an
adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking another
and possibly favorable opinion in another forum other than by
appeal or special civil action of certiorari.
Same; Same; A party cannot be said to have sought to improve
his chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action where no
unfavorable decision has ever been rendered against him in any of
the cases he has brought before the courts.·The most important
factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the
vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks
different courts to rule on the same or related causes or grant the
same or substantially the same reliefs. A party, however, cannot be
said to have sought to improve his chances of obtaining a favorable
decision or action where no unfavorable decision has ever been
rendered against him in any of the cases he has brought before the
courts.
Same; Same; The Court has laid down the yardstick to
determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping
as where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.·This
Court has laid down the yardstick to determine whether a party
violated the rule against forum shopping as where the elements of
litis pendentia are present or where a

_______________

* EN BANC.

358

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.
Stated differently, there must be between the two cases (a) identity
of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) that the identity of
the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered
in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.
Same; Same; The rule on forum shopping finds no application
where two cases although based on the same essential facts and
circumstances do not raise identical causes of action and issues.·It
is significant to note that the action filed before the CSC-CAR is
administrative in nature, dealing as it does with the proper
administrative liability, if any, which may have been incurred by
respondent for the commission of the acts complained of. In stark
contrast, the case filed before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
for Luzon, which incidentally was not initiated by herein petitioners
but by the complainant teachers, deals with the criminal
accountability of the respondent for violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. Unmistakably, the rule on forum shopping
would find no proper application since the two cases although based
on the same essential facts and circumstances do not raise identical
causes of action and issues. It would, therefore, be absurd to require
the certification of forum shopping to be attached to the formal
charge filed before the CSC, for the evil sought to be curbed by the
proscription against forum shopping is simply not extant in the
instant case.
Administrative Law; Due Process; One may be heard, not solely
by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even many times more
creditably than oral argument, through pleadings.·The essence of
due process is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to
be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of his
defense or simply an opportunity to be heard; or as applied to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action of ruling complained of. One may be
heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even
many times more creditably than oral argument, through pleadings.
Same; Same; Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not
strictly applied to administrative proceedings, and administrative
due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict
judicial sense.·Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not
even strictly applied to administrative proceedings, and
administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in
its strict judicial sense.
Same; Evidence; A finding of guilt in an administrative case
would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by
substantial evidence that the respondent has committed the acts
stated in the complaint or

359

VOL. 437, AUGUST 31, 2004 359

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

formal charge.·Administrative proceedings are governed by the

„substantial evidence rule.‰ A finding of guilt in an administrative
case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by
substantial evidence that the respondent has committed the acts
stated in the complaint or formal charge. As defined, substantial
evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept
as adequate to support a conclusion. This is different from the
quantum of proof required in criminal proceedings which
necessitates a finding of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The Ombudsman, in ordering the withdrawal of the criminal
complaints against respondent was simply saying that there is no
evidence sufficient to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt
which is a condition sine qua non for conviction. Ergo, the dismissal
of the criminal case will not foreclose administrative action against
respondent.

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for the Civil Service
Commission.

TINGA, J.:

Subject of the consolidated petitions is the Decision of the

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61081, entitled Helen
B. Hernandez v.1 Tomas G. Velasquez, promulgated on 07
November 2001. The assailed Decision annulled and set
aside the twin resolutions issued by the Civil Service
Commission (CSC for brevity), in Administrative Case No.
97-45 filed against respondent Hernandez. The CSC, in its
Resolution No. 00-1375 dated 13 June 2000, found
respondent Hernandez guilty of dishonesty and grave
misconduct and ordered her dismissal from the service,
with all the accessory penalties including her perpetual
disqualification from holding public office. In Resolution
No. 00-2064 dated 07 September 2000, the CSC denied
respondentÊs motion for reconsideration of Resolution No.
00-1375.
Stripped of non-essentials, the following are the factual
antecedents:

_______________

1 Penned by Justice Teodoro P. Regino, concurred in by Justices

Eugenio S. Labitoria and Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, Seventh Division.
Rollo, pp. 41-57.

360

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

In a letter dated 25 September 1996, the Assistant Schools

Division Superintendent of the DECS-CAR, (Cordillera
Administrative Region) sent a letter to petitioner (in G.R.
No. 150732) Tomas G. Velasquez, informing him of the
alleged infractions committed by respondent, Helen B.
Hernandez, such as soliciting, accepting, and receiving
sums of money, in exchange for transfer or promotion of
complainant teachers. Acting on the letter, petitioner
Velasquez convened a fact-finding committee to determine
the veracity of the alleged violations of respondent and to
render a formal report and recommendation.
On 26 September 1996, the Committee composed of
members assigned at the DECS-Division of Abra,
summoned to a meeting the teachers who have grievances
against respondent. Based on the sworn statements of the
teachers, namely: Elena Princena, Myrna Bayabos, Mildred
Millare, Ofrina Benabese, Emilia Beralde, Ruby Bringas,
Regina Potolin, spouses Ernesto Callena, Jr. and Ma.
Louisa Callena, Irene Bermudez, Francisco Castillo,
Elizabeth Castillo, Maribel Medrano, Benigna Bulda,
Irenea Viado, Cecilia Turqueza, Catherine Badere,
Rosalinda Bilgera, Nardita Tuscano, Henry Bisquera,
Melba Linggayo, and Maritess Navarro, it appears that
respondent demanded and/or received money in various
amounts from the teachers in consideration of their
appointment, promotion, and transfer from one school to
another.
On 15 November 1996, the Committee issued an
Investigation Report recommending the filing of
administrative and criminal complaints against
respondent. On 14 March 1997, a formal charge for Grave
Misconduct, Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service, Abuse of Authority, and Violation of
Section 22 (k) Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O.
292 and other related laws was filed against respondent.
On 24 March 1997, respondent filed her Answer to the
charges. In the main, she contended that the charges are
brazen fabrications and falsehoods made by parties with
ulterior motives which are designed to harass her in a
systematic campaign to discredit her. Respondent likewise
alleged that the preparation and taking of the statements
of the supposed 23 counts of irregularity leveled against
her were attended by coercion and fraud.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Abra issued a Resolution in I.S. No. 97-003 entitled, „People
of the Philippines v. Helen Hernandez, et al.‰ This
Resolution, which arose from

361

VOL. 437, AUGUST 31, 2004 361

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

the sworn complaints filed by the complaining teachers,

indicted respondent and a certain Luzviminda de la Cruz
for violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 3019
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. The Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor was
affirmed with modification by the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon in its Review Action dated 6
November 1997. Under the modified indictment,
respondent and dela Cruz were charged with direct bribery.
However, upon motion filed by respondent and her co-
accused, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman in its Order
dated 24 February 1998, reconsidered and set aside its
Review Action dated 6 November 1997, and ordered the
withdrawal of Informations for direct bribery filed against
respondent and de la Cruz.
After due proceedings, the CSC issued Resolution No.
00-1375, dated 13 June 2000, finding respondent guilty of
the charges against her and ordering her dismissal from
the service. The motion for reconsideration filed by
respondent was denied by the CSC in its Resolution No. 00-
2064 dated 7 September 2000.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals raising the
following issues:

1) Whether or not the CSC erred in assuming jurisdiction

and/or in rendering judgment adverse to her;
2) Whether or not the CSC erred in rendering judgment
against her in violation of her right to due process in
administrative proceedings;
3) Whether or not the CSC erred in its appreciation of the
evidence on record and;
4) Whether or not the CSC erred in imposing the penalty of
2
dismissal.

The appellate court, in its now assailed Decision, reversed

the resolutions of the CSC. It opined that when petitioners
filed a formal charge against respondent, it was incumbent
upon them to inform the Civil Service Commission that
another case was filed before the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon considering that the facts and
circumstances from which both complaints stem are the
same. Citing Section 13 (1) of Article XI of the 1987
Constitution, and Sections 19 and 21 of Republic Act No.
6770, the appellate court added that the CSC and the
Office of the Ombudsman

_______________

2 Id., at p. 46.

362

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

have concurrent original jurisdiction over administrative

cases filed against any government employee. Thus, it
ruled that the effects of res judicata or litis pendentia may
not be avoided by varying the designation of the parties,
changing the form of the action, or adopting a different
mode of presenting oneÊs case.
Anent the issue of violation of respondentÊs right to due
process, the appellate court stressed that it is not enough
that the twin requisites of notice and hearing be present. It
is important that the tribunal hearing the case must be
unbiased; indeed, if the government official or employee
under investigation is not afforded the opportunity to
present his case before a fair, independent, and impartial
tribunal, the hearing would be futile. Considering that the
composition of the fact-finding Committee is in question,
the appellate court concluded that it cannot properly be
said that there was a fair and impartial hearing of the
petitionerÊs case.
The appellate court also ruled that petitioner failed to
discharge the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
averments of the complaint because it appears that some
affiants who executed sworn statements to support the
charges against respondent later retracted their
statements and executed new statements, alleging that
they were merely induced to testify against respondent. It
also noted that some of the complaining teachers even
failed to appear in the investigation to confirm their
respective sworn statements. The appellate court,
therefore, annulled and set aside the Resolutions of the
CSC and ordered the payment of backwages to respondent.
Separate appeals via petition for review were filed
before this Court by petitioner Velasquez, in his capacity as
Officer-in Charge, Office of the School Superintendent,
DECS-Division of Abra (G.R. No. 150732) and the Civil
Service Commission (G.R. No. 151095), assailing the
decision of the appellate court. The two petitions were
ordered consolidated in a Resolution of this Court dated 25
June 2002. G.R. No. 150732, assigned to the Third Division
of this Court, was ordered consolidated with G.R. No.
151095, an En Banc case even if the first mentioned
petition has a lower docket number considering that both
cases involve resolutions of the Civil Service Commission.
The issues in both petitions are substantially the same.
In G.R. No. 150732, petitioner raised the following
issues:

363

VOL. 437, AUGUST 31, 2004 363

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING

THAT THE FORMAL CHARGE WHICH WAS FILED BY THE CSC
AGAINST THE RESPONDENT SHOULD CONTAIN A
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING.

II.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING

THAT RESPONDENTÊS RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE DUE
PROCESS WAS VIOLATED.

III.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING

THAT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT WAS
INSUFFICIENT.

IV.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING

THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE
 3
PAYMENT OF HER BACKWAGES.

On the other hand, the following issues were raised by the

CSC in G.R. No. 151095:

I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE FORMAL CHARGE SHOULD

CONTAIN A CERTIFICATE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING;

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CSC ERRED IN RENDERING

JUDGMENT AGAINST RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE
LATTERÊS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS;

III.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CSC ERRED IN ITS

APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND
FINDING RESPONDENT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSES
4
CHARGED.

In both cases, petitioners asseverate that under Section 21

of the Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of
Administrative Investigations (CSC Resolution No. 99-
1936, dated 31 August 1999), it is the complaint and the
not the formal charge which should

_______________

3 Rollo, pp. 21-22.

4 Rollo, p. 15.

364

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

contain a certification of non-forum shopping. The Office of

the Solicitor General strongly argues that the formal
charge was filed, not by the complaining teachers or the
DECS Fact-Finding Committee, but by the CSC-CAR and
it would thus be unnecessary to require a certification of
non-forum shopping considering that the CSC is the sole
arbiter of all contests relating to the Civil Service and it
would be absurd for the CSC-CAR to file the same
administrative case against respondent in another forum.
The OSG adds that there was no need for the CSC-CAR to
inform the CSC about the criminal action for Direct
Bribery in OMB-1-96-2757 because the said action was not
filed by the CSC-CAR.
The CSC on the other hand, argues that what was filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman is a criminal case and
while the facts therein may be similar to the pending
administrative case, the Office of the Ombudsman and the
CSC will not rule on the same cause of action or grant the
same relief. According to the CSC, there is no possibility of
having conflicting decisions as the two cases are distinct
from each other.
Petitioners dispute the Court of AppealsÊ finding that
respondentÊs right to administrative due process was
violated. Respondent can hardly be said to have been
deprived of due process as she was given the chance to
answer the charges, to submit countervailing evidence, and
to cross-examine the witnesses against her. The mere fact
that respondent questioned the impartiality of the fact
finding committee will not automatically result in a denial
of due process because what matters is that respondent
had actively participated in the proceedings against her.
Petitioners add that respondentÊs culpability was not based
solely on the report of the fact-finding committee, but also
on the evidence submitted by the respondent which,
unfortunately, was found wanting.
Succinctly, petitioners argue that the appellate court
erred in holding that the evidence they presented to
establish the culpability of the respondent is insufficient.
The finding is based merely on the retraction of the sworn
statements of some three teachers and the failure of three
others to appear during the formal investigation.
Petitioners stress that a majority of the complainant
teachers remained consistent in their claim that
respondent actually and directly received from them
various amounts of money in exchange for their
appointment, promotion, or transfer. They add that the
dismissal of the criminal action against respondent in
OMB-1-96-

365

VOL. 437, AUGUST 31, 2004 365

 Velasquez vs. Hernandez

2757 cannot be treated as a bar to the administrative case

primarily because administrative liability is distinct from
penal liability. In conclusion, petitioners fault the appellate
court for reversing the factual findings of the CSC, ordering
the reinstatement of respondent, and awarding backwages
in her favor.
Upon the other hand, respondent would have the Court
sustain the Decision of the appellate court exonerating her
of all the charges in the administrative case. Citing CSC
Resolution No. 95-3099, respondent argues that even on the
assumption that a certificate of non-forum shopping is not
necessary in the formal charge, petitioners nevertheless
failed to show that the complaint filed by the teachers
contained the required certification of non-forum shopping.
She theorizes that since it is the CSC-CAR which filed the
formal charge against her, it would be difficult to imagine
that the CSC will make a turn around and take a position
contrary to its earlier findings that a prima facie case
against her exists. Respondent insists that to allow the
CSC to exercise jurisdiction over the case would be similar
to allowing one person to act as prosecutor and judge at the
same time.
In support of the appellate courtÊs Decision, respondent
maintains that it correctly ruled that there was no fair and
impartial hearing of her case before the fact-finding
committee. She contends that the integrity of the fact-
finding committee is questionable considering that the
chairperson of the committee is a relative of one of the
complainant teachers, Ms. Immaculada Bringas, who
incidentally would be the next in rank if she is ousted from
her position. Finally, she adds that petitioners are urging
this Court to review the factual findings of the appellate
court which cannot be done in the instant petition which
must raise only questions of law.
The Court rules for the petitioners.
CSC Resolution No. 95-3099 dated 9 May 1995 (Further
Amended by CSC Resolution No. 99-1936, dated 31 August
1999), amending Section 4 of CSC Resolution No. 94-0521,
Series of 1994, provides:

„Section 4. Complaint in Writing and Under Oath·No complaint

against a civil servant shall be given due course, unless the same is
in writing and under oath.
 The complaint should be written in a clear, simple and concise
language and in a systematic manner as to apprise the civil servant
con-

366

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

cerned of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to
enable him to intelligently prepare his defense or answer.
The complaint shall also contain the following:

(a) x x x xxx xxx xxx

(b) x x x xxx xxx xxx
(c) x x x xxx xxx xxx
(d) a statement that no other administrative action or complaint
against the same party involving the same acts or omissions
and issues, has been filed before another agency or
administrative tribunal. In the absence of any one of the
requirements therein stated, the complaint shall be
dismissed. (Italics supplied)

The appellate court placed much reliance on the above-

quoted provision of CSC Resolution No. 95-3099 in relation
to Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
when it ruled that it was incumbent upon petitioner (in
G.R. No. 150732) to inform that another case was filed
before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.
Strikingly, the appellate court failed to state in its Decision
the person or entity which petitioner must notify of the
pending case with the Ombudsman. The appellate court
then cited a litany of cases on forum shopping and
concluded that petitionerÊs failure to state in the formal
charge that there is no other action or complaint pending
against herein respondent constitutes a violation of the
rule against forum shopping that merited the dismissal of
the complaint. It ratiocinated that since the facts and
circumstances from which both complaints stem from are
the same, petitioners should have attached in their
complaint the certificate of non-forum shopping.
Inconsistently, however, the appellate court was quick to
add that the cause of action in the CSC and the Office of
the Deputy Ombudsman are distinct; nevertheless, it said
that in order to obviate the risk of violating the rule,
petitioners should have attached the certification against
non-forum shopping.
The Court finds the above disquisition unsound.
Forum shopping consists of filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously or successively,
5
for the purpose of
obtaining a favorable judgment. It may also consist in a
party against whom an adverse judgment has

_______________

5 Leyson, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 134990, April 27,
2000, 331 SCRA 227.

367

VOL. 437, AUGUST 31, 2004 367

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

been rendered in one forum, seeking another and possibly

favorable opinion in another forum 6
other than by appeal or
special civil action of certiorari.
The most important factor in determining the existence
of forum shopping is the vexation caused the courts and
parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to
rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs. A party, however, cannot be
said to have sought to improve his chances of obtaining a
favorable decision or action where no unfavorable decision
has ever been rendered against 7
him in any of the cases he
has brought before the courts.
In not a few cases, this Court has laid down the
yardstick to determine whether a party violated the rule
against forum shopping as where the elements of litis
pendentia are present or where a final judgment8 in one
case will amount to res judicata in the other. Stated
differently, there must be between the two cases (a)
identity of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs
prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(c) that the identity of the two preceding particulars is such
that any judgment rendered in the other action will,
regardless of which party is successful,9 amount to res
judicata in the action under consideration.
It is significant to note that the action filed before the
CSC-CAR is administrative in nature, dealing as it does
with the proper administrative liability, if any, which may
have been incurred by respondent for the commission of the
acts complained of. In stark

_______________

6 Bangko Silangan Development Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

110480, June 29, 2001, 360 SCRA 322; Philippine Economic Zone
Authority v. Vianzon, G.R. No. 131020, July 20, 2000, 336 SCRA 309;
Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
123555, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 637.
7 Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001, 363
SCRA 207.
8 Manalo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141297, October 8, 2001, 366
SCRA 752; United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on
the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 135945, March 7, 2001, 353
SCRA 782; Ayala Land, Inc. v. Valisno, G.R. No. 135899, February 2,
2000, 324 SCRA 522; Saura v. Saura, Jr., G.R. No. 136159, September 1,
1999, 313 SCRA 465; Prubrankers Association v. Prudential Bank &
Trust Company, G.R. No. 131247, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 74.
9 Benedicto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001,
364 SCRA 334.

368

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

contrast, the case filed before the Office of the Deputy

Ombudsman for Luzon, which incidentally was not
initiated by herein petitioners but by the complainant
teachers, deals with the criminal accountability of the
respondent for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Unmistakably, the rule on forum shopping
would find no proper application since the two cases
although based on the same essential facts and
circumstances
10
do not raise identical causes of action and
issues. It would, therefore, be absurd to require the
certification of forum shopping to be attached to the formal
charge filed before the CSC, for the evil sought to be curbed
by the proscription against forum shopping is simply not
extant in the instant case.
On the issue of her having been denied administrative
due process, the Court likewise finds respondentÊs claim
untenable.
 The essence of due process is that a party be afforded a
reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present any
evidence he may have in support 11 of his defense or simply
an opportunity to be heard; or as applied to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek 12
a
reconsideration of the action of ruling complained of. One
may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also,
and perhaps even many times more creditably than oral
argument, through pleadings. Technical rules of procedure
and evidence are not even strictly applied to administrative
proceedings, and administrative due process cannot 13
be
fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense.

_______________

10 Yulienco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131692, June 10, 1999, 308
SCRA 206.
11 Pilipinas Loan Company, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, G.R. No. 104720, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 193; Philippine
Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 4th Division, G.R.
No. 115785, August 4, 2000, 337 SCRA 286; Orola v. Alovera, G.R. No.
111074, July 14, 2000, 335 SCRA 609; Tubiano v. Razo, G.R. No. 132598,
July 13, 2000, 335 SCRA 531; National Police Commission v. Bernabe,
G.R. No. 129914, May 12, 2000, 332 SCRA 74.
12 Adiong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136480, December 4, 2001, 371
SCRA 373; Vda. de Dela Cruz v. Abille, G.R. No. 130196, February 26,
2001, 352 SCRA 691 (2001).
13 Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 114683, January 18,
2000, 322 SCRA 17.

369

VOL. 437, AUGUST 31, 2004 369

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

14
In fact in Pefianco v. Moral, the Court had the occasion to
rule that a respondent in an administrative case is not
entitled to be informed of the findings and
recommendations of any investigating committee created to
inquire into charges filed against him·he is entitled only
to the administrative decision based on substantial
evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunity to
meet the charges and the evidence presented against him
during the hearing of the investigation committee. It is the
administrative resolution, not the investigation report,
which should be the basis of any further remedies that the
losing party in an administrative case might wish to
pursue.
Respondent had been amply accorded the opportunity to
be heard. She was required to answer the formal charge
against her and given the chance to present evidence in her
behalf. She actively participated in the proceedings and
even cross-examined the witnesses against her. Clearly,
based on the above jurisprudential pronouncements the
appellate courtÊs finding that respondent was denied due
process is utterly without basis.
Administrative proceedings 15
are governed by the
„substantial evidence rule.‰ A finding of guilt in an
administrative case would have to be sustained for as long
as it is supported by substantial evidence that the
respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint
or formal charge. As defined, substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable 16
mind may accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. This is different from
the quantum of proof required in criminal proceedings
which necessitates a finding of guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The Ombudsman, in ordering the
withdrawal of the criminal complaints against respondent
was simply saying that there is no evidence sufficient to
establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt which is a
condition sine qua non for conviction. Ergo, the dismissal of
the criminal case will not foreclose administrative action
against respondent.

_______________

14 G.R. No. 132248, January 19, 2000, 322 SCRA 439.

15 Ocampo v. Ombudsman, supra, note 13.
16 Western Shipyard Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
110340, May 28, 2001, 358 SCRA 257; San Juan, Jr. v. Sangalang, Adm.
Matter No. P-00-1437, February 6, 2001, 351 SCRA 210.

370

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Velasquez vs. Hernandez

In the instant case, this Court is of the view that the sworn
complaints of the twenty remaining complainants coupled
with their positive testimonies in the proceedings below,
more than adequately complies with the standard of proof
required in administrative cases. The desistance executed
by three (3) out of the twenty-three (23) original
complainants is of no moment since administrative actions
cannot be made to depend upon the will of every
complainant who 17
may, for one reason or another, condone a
detestable act.
All told, the Court holds that respondentÊs guilt in the
administrative case has been sufficiently established and 18
pursuant to existing Civil Service Rules and Regulations,
her dismissal from the service is warranted.
WHEREFORE, the instant consolidated petitions are
hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs
against the respondent.
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,

Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr.,
Azcuna and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Puno, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio,
JJ., On Official Leave.

Petition granted, assailed decision reversed and set

aside.

Notes.·A party is not permitted to pursue

simultaneous remedies in two different fora. (Heirs of
Victorina Motus Peñaverde vs. Heirs of Mariano Peñaverde,
344 SCRA 69 [2000])
In administrative proceedings, complainants have the
burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations
in their complaints. (Morales vs. Dumlao, 376 SCRA 573
[2002])

··o0o··

_______________

17 Agulan, Jr. v. Fernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1354, April 4, 2001, 356

SCRA 162.
18 Section 52, (A) (1) (3), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service in relation to Section 22(k),
Rule IV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
292.

371
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.