G.R. No. 149335 July 1, 2003
EDILLO C. MONTEMAYOR, petitioner,
vs.
LUIS BUNDALIAN, RONALDO B. ZAMORA, Executive Secretary, Office of the President, AND GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, Secretary, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), respondents.
PUNO, J.:

Petitioner EDILLO C. MONTEMAYOR assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the decision of the Office of the President in Administrative Order No. 12 ordering petitioner’s dismissal as Regional Director of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for unexplained wealth.

Private respondent LUIS BUNDALIAN addressed an unverified letter of complaint and its attached documents to the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco, California, U.S.A which were later on indorsed to the Philippine Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) for investigation.

Petitioner, represented by counsel, submitted his counter-affidavit before the PCAGC alleging that the real owner of the subject property was his sister-in-law Estela Fajardo. Petitioner likewise pointed out that the charge against him was the subject of similar cases filed before the Ombudsman which was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

The PCAGC conducted its own investigation of the complaint. While petitioner participated in the proceedings and submitted various pleadings and documents through his counsel, private respondent-complainant could not be located as his Philippine address could not be ascertained.

After the investigation, the PCAGC, in its Report to the Office of the President, concluded that as petitioner’s acquisition of the subject property was manifestly out of proportion to his salary, it has been unlawfully acquired. Thus, it recommended petitioner’s dismissal from service pursuant to Section 8 of R.A. No. 3019.

Issues:

1. Whether or not he was denied due process in the investigation before the PCAGC?
2. Whether or not his guilt was proved by substantial evidence?
3. Whether or not the earlier dismissal of similar cases before the Ombudsman rendered the administrative case before the PCAGC moot and academic?

Held:

On the first issue, 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 the case at bar, the petitioner cannot argue that he was deprived of due process just because he failed to confront and cross-examine the complainant, the PCAGC exerted efforts to notify the complainant of the proceedings but his Philippine residence could not be located. The petitioner’s 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. He cannot now be allowed to challenge the procedure adopted by the PCAGC in the investigation.

On the second issue, basic principles in administrative investigations negate the power of the reviewing court to re-examine the sufficiency of the evidence in an administrative case as if originally instituted therein, and do not authorize the court to receive additional evidence that was not submitted to the administrative agency concerned. In the case at bar, petitioner’s own evidence contradict his position, shifting the burden of proof to prove non-ownership of the property to the petitioner.

On the last issue, the Supreme Court cannot sustain petitioner’s stance that the dismissal of similar charges against him before the Ombudsman rendered the administrative case against him before the PCAGC moot and academic. The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, not to the exercise of administrative powers. Petitioner was investigated by the Ombudsman for his possible criminal liability for the acquisition of the Burbank property in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code. For the same alleged misconduct, petitioner, as a presidential appointee, was investigated by the PCAGC by virtue of the administrative power and control of the President over him. As the PCAGC’s investigation of petitioner was administrative in nature, the doctrine of res judicata finds no application in the case at bar.

The petition was dismissed.