AM. No. P-07-2333
December 19, 2007
Facts
An anonymous letter complaint was sent to a Judge. The complaint charged Radam, a court utility worker, of immorality for having a child out of wedlock. The RTC found Radam guilty of immoral conduct. A suspension for one month or a fine of P5,000 was recommended. Thereafter, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) absolved respondent of the charge of immorality but proposed that she be held liable for conduct unbecoming a court employee and imposed a fine of P5,000 for stating in the birth certificate of her child Christian Jeon that the father was “unknown” to her.
Issue
Whether or not the decision of the OCA was violative of the due process clause for charging Radam with an offense not included in the complaint?
Held
Yes. In Garcia v Pajaro, the essence of due process in an administrative proceeding is the opportunity to explain one’s side, whether written or verbal. This presupposes that one has been previously apprised of the accusation against him or her. In GSIS v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that:
An employee must be informed of the charges proferred against him, and . . . the normal way by which the employee is so informed is by furnishing him with a copy of the charges against him. This is a basic procedural requirement that . . . cannot [be] dispense[d] with and still remain consistent with the constitutional provision on due process. The second minimum requirement is that the employee charged with some misfeasance or malfeasance must have a reasonable opportunity to present his side of the matter, that is to say, his defenses against the charges levelled against him and to present evidence in support of his defense(s).
Here, respondent was deprived of both with regard to her alleged unbecoming conduct in relation to a certain statement in the birth certificate of her child. Respondent was indicted only for alleged immorality for giving birth out of wedlock. It was the only charge of which she was informed. Judge Abella’s investigation focused solely on that matter. Thus, the recommendation of the OCA that she be held administratively liable in connection with an entry in the birth certificate of Christian Jeon came like a thief in the night. It was unwarranted. Respondent was neither confronted with it nor given the chance to explain it. To hold her liable for a totally different charge of which she was totally unaware violated her right to due process.