Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CA
procedural due process
Buhi Bank was a rural bank. Its books were examined by the Rural Banks division of the Central Bank
However, it refused to be examined. As a consequence, its financial assistance was suspended
Later, a general examination of the banks affairs and operations were again conducted.
The rural banks division found out massive irregularities in the operations, giving out loans to unknown and fictitious
borrowers, and sums amounting to millions past due to the Central Bank. There were also promissory notes rediscounted
with the Central Bank for cash.
As a result, the Buhi Bank became insolvent.
The division chief, Odra, recommended that Buhi be placed under receivership.
Thus, the Monetary Board adopted a Resolution # 583, placing the bank under receivership. Odra, the division chief, was
made the receiver.
Odra thus implemented the resolution, authorizing deputies to take control and possession of Buhis assets and liabilities.
Del Rosario, the Buhi Bank Manager, filed an injunction against the receiver, arguing that the resolution violated the Rural
Banks Act and constitutes gadalej. The bank claims that there was a violation of due process. They claim that the bank was
not given the chance to deny and disprove the claim of insolvency or the other grounds and that it was hastily put under
receivership.
Later on, the Central Bank Monetary Board ordered the liquidation of the Bank.
The judge ruled in favor of the Bank and issued a writ of execution.
The CA however restrained the enforcement of execution, citing that the Judge did not follow the orders, and thus required
the Bank to yield to the CB.
Held: Yes. The Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and Commonwealth Act
No. 103 requires it to act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or
legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable.
There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character. The first of these rights is the
right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in
support thereof. Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to
establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. While the duty to deliberate does
not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having
something to support its decision. Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence
must be substantial. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record
and disclosed to the parties affected. The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving
at a decision. The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance
of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.
DOMINGO V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
G.R. NO. 176127, JANUARY 30 2009
FACTS: A complaint for malversation, falsification of public document, dishonesty and grave misconduct was filed against
Barangay Chairman Domingo by Sangguniang Kabataan officials Paguio, Esguerra and Neil Patrick H. Celis (NPH yes, NPH
talaga, wait for it..)
NPH et al. alleged that: In 2003, Domingo gave a false statement in his Justification supporting the 2003 Barangay Budget and
Expenditures. The Justification provides that his barangay had no incumbent SK officials at that time contrary to the fact that
NPH et al. are duly elected and incumbent SK officials of the barangay.
Domingo asserted that all financial transactions of the barangay, particularly the expenditures, were supported by pertinent
documents and properly liquidated. He also questioned the authenticity of the Justification and that his signature therein was
forged.
The ombudsman rendered judgment finding Domingo guilty of violation of Section 4(b) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Code of Conduct) 1 and was suspended for 6 months. Domingo was also held
administratively liable for the irregular submission of a falsified instrument to the Manila Barangay Bureau in connection with
his barangays 2003 budget.
However, the charge of misappropriation was dismissed for being premature since the audit of the subject barangay transaction
had not been concluded by the Office of the City Auditor. The OMB also dismissed the charge of falsification of public document
on the ground that questions pertaining to the authenticity of a signature in a document necessitate judicial determination.
Domingo filed an MR. The OMB reiterated that Domingo was not made administratively liable for falsification but for the
submission of the Justification. The OMB held that being the Chief Executive Officer of the barangay, Domingo assumes full
responsibility on the propriety of all documents submitted in support of the proposed budget. The CA affirmed the decision of
the OMB.
Domingos position:
(1) One cannot be indicted for the submission of a document which he himself has repudiated (main argument).
(2) He cannot be held administratively liable for any act beyond his control and knowledge under the Code of Conduct. The act
for which he was indicted is clearly beyond his knowledge and control. He could not have possibly falsified his own signature. If
he was responsible for the insertion of the Justification, he could have put his genuine signature instead of falsifying it.
(3) He has no access or control over the submission of documents relative to the release of funds for specific projects, as the
responsibility rests either with the Barangay Secretary or Treasurer.
(4) The 6 month suspension is excessive in view of the fact that no undue injury or damage is done to the cause of public
service, or to NPH et al. themselves.
OMBs position:
(1) The submission of a Justification which contains a false declaration runs afoul of the conduct a public servant must exhibit
at all times (highest sense of honesty and integrity).
(2) The penalty is also in accordance with the Code of Conduct.