Missing complainant

In administrative investigations, is it necessary that complainant be present so that he can be confronted and cross examined by the respondent? Can a respondent be investigated and later on dismissed on the basis of an unverified letter complaint? These are the questions answered in this case of Rolando (not his true name).

Rolando was a regional director of the department of public works and highways. In 1993, he purchased a house and lot in California, U.S.A. for US$195,000 (P3.9 million at the prevailing exchange rate in 1993). At that time, his annual income was only P168,648 as appearing in his service record. This transaction was the subject of report in the column of a local journalist which was picked up by Joey, a Filipino residing in California.

In unverified letter to the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco, Joey accused Rolando of accumulating unexplained wealth in violation of Section 8, RA 3019 (Anti Graft Law). Attached to the unverified letter complaint were the copy of the Grant Deed evidencing the purchase; the special power of attorney executed by Rolando and his wife appointing his sister-in-law in America as their attorney-in-fact to negotiate and conclude the sale; and the newspaper column of the local journalist. This unverified letter complaint was referred by the consulate to the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC).

For about ten months the PCAGC conducted its investigation. Rolando through his counsel submitted his counter-affidavit and documents denying the charges. He said that the property was really owned by his sister-in-law but was placed in his name and that of his wife to support their emigration plans to the US. Joey the complainant, on the other hand, did not appear even once as his Philippine address could not be ascertained. After investigation, the PCAGC found that Rolando indeed purchased said house and lot, and that his acquisition was manifestly out of proportion to his salary. PCAGC took against Rolando his refusal to submit his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth and his Income Tax Return which raised the presumption that they would be adversed if produced. So Rolando was dismissed from the service by the Office of the President, with forfeiture of all government benefits.

Rolando questioned his dismissal. He contended that the PCAGC committed infractions of the cardinal rules of due process when it relied on Joey’s unverified letter-complaint. He said that his affidavit should have been given more weight as the unverified complaint constitutes hearsay evidence. Moreover, he insisted that PCAGC failed to respect his right to to confront and cross-examine Joey who never appeared in any of the hearings before the PCAGC nor did he send a representative therein.

Was Rolando correct?

No.

The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. In this case, the PCAGC exerted efforts to notify complainant of the proceedings but his Philippine residence could not be located. Be that as it may, Rolando cannot argue that he was denied due process because he failed to confront and cross examine complainant. He voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the PCAGC by participating in the proceedings before it. He was duly represented by counsel. His active participation in every step of the investigation effectively removed any badge of procedural deficiency, if there was any, and satisfied the due process requirement.

The lack of verification of the administrative complaint and the non-appearance of the complainant did not divest the PCAGC of its authority to investigate the charge of unexplained wealth. Complaints involving graft and corruption may be filed before PCAGC in any form or manner against presidential appointees in the executive department( Section 3, E.O.151). Indeed it is not totally uncommon that a government agency is given a wide latitude in the scope and exercise of its investigative powers. The Ombudsman, under the Constitution, is directed to act on any complaint likewise filed in any form and manner concerning official acts and omissions. The Court Administrator investigates and takes cognizance of, not only unverified, but even anonymous complaints filed against court employees or officials for violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct. This policy has been adopted in line with the serious effort of the government to minimize, if not eradicate, graft and corruption in the service.

Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in strict judicial sense for it is enough that the party is given the chance to be heard before the case against him is decided. This was afforded to Rolando in this case. (Montemayor vs. Bundalian et. al. G.R. 149335 July 1, 2003).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]