See:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2010/08/08201002.php
SC Rules for Two Preventively Suspended GSIS Lawyers
Posted August 20, 2010; By Joachim Florencio Q. Corsiga
The Supreme Court En Banc recently affirmed the Court of Appeals decision declaring the preventive suspension of two Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) lawyers null and void and awarding them their back salaries during the period of their unjustified suspension.
In a 15-page decision penned by Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, the Court found that respondents Maria Molina and Albert Velasco, both Attorney V of the GSIS, were denied due process of the law when petitioner Winston Garcia, in his capacity as GSIS President and General Manager, sans the requisite preliminary investigation issued two separate Memoranda charging the respondents with allegedly committing acts constituting grave misconduct and ordering their preventive suspension for 90 days without pay.
The Court held that although the Civil Service Rules do not specifically provide that a formal charge without the requisite preliminary investigation is null and void, it is, however, “mandatory for the disciplinary authority to conduct a preliminary investigation or at least respondent should be given the opportunity to comment and explain his side.” The Court adds “this is done prior to the issuance of the formal charge and the comment required therein is different from the answer that may later be filed by respondents.” No exception is provided by the CSC Rules, not even an indictment in flagranti, as claimed by the petitioner, held the Court.
The Court explained that even if the complainant is the disciplining authority himself, he could comply with such requirement by issuing a “memorandum requiring the respondents to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against them instead of immediately issuing formal charges. With respondents' comments, petitioner would have properly evaluated both sides of the controversy before making a conclusion that there was a prima facie case against the respondents, leading to the issuance of the questioned formal charges.”
The Court stressed the cardinal precept “that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a party's right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction. This rule is equally true in quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings, for the constitutional guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process is unqualified by the type of proceedings (whether judicial or administrative) where he stands to lose the same.” (GR No. 157383, Garcia v. Molina, and GR No. 174137, Garcia v. Molina, August 10, 2010)
