G.R. No. 117565 November 18, 1997 ROMERO, J.

ARSENIO P. LUMIQUED (deceased), Regional Director, DAR —

CAR, Represented by his Heirs, Francisca A. Lumiqued, May A.
Lumiqued, Arlene A. Lumiqued and Richard A. Lumiqued,
petitioners,
vs.
Honorable APOLONIO G. EXEVEA, ERDOLFO V. BALAJADIA
and FELIX T. CABADING, ALL Members of Investigating
Committee, created by DOJ Order No. 145 on May 30, 1992;
HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, HON.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO, CHIEF Presidential Legal
Adviser/Counsel; and HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING,
Senior Deputy Executive Secretary of the Office of the
President, and JEANNETTE OBAR-ZAMUDIO, Private
Respondent, respondents.

FACTS:

Arsenio P. Lumiqued was the Regional Director of the DAR-CAR

before his dismissal in 1993. The dismissal was the aftermath of three
complaints filed by Jeannette Obar-Zamudio, the Regional Cashier,
of malversation through falsification of official documents;
concealing of unliquidated cash advances through falsification of
accounting entries; oppression and harassment. On the first
scheduled Committee hearing, Lumiqued was not assisted by
counsel and on the second hearing, he moved for the resetting of the
date to enable him to employ the services of counsel, however,
Lumiqued nor his counsel appeared on the date he himself had
chosen, so the committee deemed the case submitted for resolution.

Following the conclusion of the hearings, Lumiqued was found liable

for all the charges against him. Accordingly, in 1993, President Fidel
V. Ramos himself issued A.O. No. 52, finding Lumiqued
administratively liable for dishonesty in the alteration of fifteen
gasoline receipts, and dismissing him from the service, with forfeiture
of his retirement and other benefits. Lumiqued filed a motion for
reconsideration, alleging that he was denied the constitutional right
to counsel during the hearing.

ISSUE: Does the due process clause encompass the right to be

assisted by counsel during an administrative inquiry?

HELD:

While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at

times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that under
existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be
assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of
the respondent’s capacity to represent himself. In an administrative
proceeding such as the one that transpired, a respondent (such as
Lumiqued) has the option of engaging the services of counsel or not.
Thus, the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative
investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to
determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures
against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of
maintaining the dignity of government service.

In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply

the opportunity to explain one’s side. As long as a party was given
the opportunity to defend his interests in due course he cannot be
said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to
be heard is the very essence of due process. This constitutional
mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to
seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. In this
case, Lumiqued’s appeal and his subsequent filing of motions for
reconsideration cured whatever irregularity attended the proceedings
conducted by the committee.