EN BANC

[G.R. No. 117565. November 18, 1997.]

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.

Aquino, Galang, Lucas & Associates for petitioners.

Solicitor General for public respondents.

DECISION

ROMERO, J : p

Does the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted by counsel
during an administrative inquiry? cdta

Arsenio P. Lumiqued was the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian

Reform — Cordillera Autonomous Region (DAR-CAR) until President Fidel V. Ramos
dismissed him from that position pursuant to Administrative Order No. 52 dated May 12,
1993. In view of Lumiqued's death on May 19, 1994, his heirs instituted this petition for
certiorari and mandamus, questioning such order.
The dismissal was the aftermath of three complaints filed by DAR-CAR Regional
Cashier and private respondent Jeannette Obar-Zamudio with the Board of Discipline of
the DAR. The first affidavit-complaint dated November 16, 1989, 1 charged Lumiqued
with malversation through falsification of official documents. From May to September
1989, Lumiqued allegedly committed at least 93 counts of falsification by padding
gasoline receipts. He even submitted a vulcanizing shop receipt worth P550.00 for
gasoline bought from the shop, and another receipt for P660.00 for a single vulcanizing
job. With the use of falsified receipts, Lumiqued claimed and was reimbursed the sum of
P44,172.46. Private respondent added that Lumiqued seldom made field trips and
preferred to stay in the office, making it impossible for him to consume the nearly 120
liters of gasoline he claimed everyday.
In her second affidavit-complaint dated November 22, 1989, 2 private respondent
accused Lumiqued with violation of Commission on Audit (COA) rules and regulations,
alleging that during the months of April, May, July, August, September and October
1989, he made unliquidated cash advances in the total amount of P116,000.00.
Lumiqued purportedly defrauded the government "by deliberately concealing his
unliquidated cash advances through the falsification of accounting entries in order not to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 reflect on 'Cash advances of other officials' under code 8-70-600 of accounting rules."
The third affidavit-complaint dated December 15, 1989, 3 charged Lumiqued with
oppression and harassment. According to private respondent, her two previous
complaints prompted Lumiqued to retaliate by relieving her from her post as Regional
Cashier without just cause.
The three affidavit-complaints were referred in due course to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) for appropriate action. On May 20, 1992, Acting Justice Secretary
Eduardo G. Montenegro issued Department Order No. 145 creating a committee to
investigate the complaints against Lumiqued. The order appointed Regional State
Prosecutor Apolinario Exevea as committee chairman with City Prosecutor Erdolfo
Balajadia and Provincial Prosecutor Felix Cabading as members. They were mandated
to conduct an investigation within thirty days from receipt of the order, and to submit
their report and recommendation within fifteen days from its conclusion.
The investigating committee accordingly issued a subpoena directing Lumiqued
to submit his counter-affidavit on or before June 17, 1992. Lumiqued, however, filed
instead an urgent motion to defer submission of his counter-affidavit pending actual
receipt of two of private respondent's complaints. The committee granted the motion
and gave him a five-day extension.
In his counter-affidavit dated June 23, 1992, 4 Lumiqued alleged, inter alia, that
the cases were filed against him to extort money from innocent public servants like him,
and were initiated by private respondent in connivance with a certain Benedict Ballug of
Tarlac and a certain Benigno Aquino III. He claimed that the apparent weakness of the
charge was bolstered by private respondent's execution of an affidavit of desistance. 5
Lumiqued admitted that his average daily gasoline consumption was 108.45
liters. He submitted, however, that such consumption was warranted as it was the
aggregate consumption of the five service vehicles issued under his name and intended
for the use of the Office of the Regional Director of the DAR. He added that the receipts
which were issued beyond his region were made in the course of his travels to Ifugao
Province, the DAR Central Office in Diliman, Quezon City, and Laguna, where he
attended a seminar. Because these receipts were merely turned over to him by drivers
for reimbursement, it was not his obligation but that of auditors and accountants to
determine whether they were falsified. He affixed his signature on the receipts only to
signify that the same were validly issued by the establishments concerned in order that
official transactions of the DAR-CAR could be carried out.
Explaining why a vulcanizing shop issued a gasoline receipt, Lumiqued said that
he and his companions were cruising along Santa Fe, Nueva Vizcaya on their way to
Ifugao when their service vehicle ran out of gas. Since it was almost midnight, they
sought the help of the owner of a vulcanizing shop who readily furnished them with the
gasoline they needed. The vulcanizing shop issued its own receipt so that they could
reimburse the cost of the gasoline. Domingo Lucero, the owner of said vulcanizing
shop, corroborated this explanation in an affidavit dated June 25, 1990. 6 With respect
to the accusation that he sought reimbursement in the amount of P660.00 for one
vulcanizing job, Lumiqued submitted that the amount was actually only P6.60. Any error
committed in posting the amount in the books of the Regional Office was not his
personal error or accountability.
To refute private respondent's allegation that he violated COA rules and
regulations in incurring unliquidated cash advances in the amount of P116,000.00,
Lumiqued presented a certification 7 of DAR-CAR Administrative Officer Deogracias F.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Almora that he had no outstanding cash advances on record as of December 31, 1989.
In disputing the charges of oppression and harassment against him, Lumiqued
contended that private respondent was not terminated from the service but was merely
relieved of her duties due to her prolonged absences. While admitting that private
respondent filed the required applications for leave of absence, Lumiqued claimed that
the exigency of the service necessitated disapproval of her application for leave of
absence. He allegedly rejected her second application for leave of absence in view of
her failure to file the same immediately with the head office or upon her return to work.
He also asserted that no medical certificate supported her application for leave of
absence.
In the same counter-affidavit, Lumiqued also claimed that private respondent was
corrupt and dishonest because a COA examination revealed that her cash
accountabilities from June 22 to November 23, 1989, were short by P30,406.87.
Although private respondent immediately returned the amount on January 18, 1990, the
day following the completion of the cash examination, Lumiqued asserted that she
should be relieved from her duties and assigned to jobs that would not require handling
of cash and money matters.
Committee hearings on the complaints were conducted on July 3 and 10, 1992,
but Lumiqued was not assisted by counsel. On the second hearing date, he moved for
its resetting to July 17, 1992, to enable him to employ the services of counsel. The
committee granted the motion, but neither Lumiqued nor his counsel appeared on the
date he himself had chosen, so the committee deemed the case submitted for
resolution.
On August 12, 1992, Lumiqued filed an urgent motion for additional hearing, 8
alleging that he suffered a stroke on July 10, 1992. The motion was forwarded to the
Office of the State Prosecutor apparently because the investigation had already been
terminated. In an order dated September 7, 1992, 9 State Prosecutor Zoila C. Montero
denied the motion, viz.:
"The medical certificate given show(s) that respondent was discharged
from the Sacred Heart Hospital on July 17, 1992, the date of the hearing, which
date was upon the request of respondent (Lumiqued). The records do not
disclose that respondent advised the Investigating committee of his
confinement and inability to attend despite his discharge, either by himself or
thru counsel. The records likewise do not show that efforts were exerted to
notify the Committee of respondent's condition on any reasonable date after
July 17, 1992. It is herein noted that as early as June 23, 1992, respondent was
already being assisted by counsel.
Moreover an evaluation of the counter-affidavit submitted reveal(s) the
sufficiency, completeness and thoroughness of the counter-affidavit together
with the documentary evidence annexed thereto, such that a judicious
determination of the case based on the pleadings submitted is already
possible. cdti

Moreover, considering that the complaint-affidavit was filed as far back

as November 16, 1989 yet, justice can not be delayed much longer."
Following the conclusion of the hearings, the investigating committee rendered a
report dated July 31, 1992, 10 finding Lumiqued liable for all the charges against him. It
made the following findings:
"After a thorough evaluation of the evidences (sic) submitted by the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 parties, this committee finds the evidence submitted by the complainant
sufficient to establish the guilt of the respondent for Gross Dishonesty and
Grave Misconduct.
That most of the gasoline receipts used by the respondent in claiming for
the reimbursement of his gasoline expenses were falsified is clearly established
by the 15 Certified Xerox Copies of the duplicate receipts (Annexes G-1 to G-
15) and the certifications issued by the different gasoline stations where the
respondent purchased gasoline. Annexes 'G-1' to 'G-15' show that the actual
average purchase made by the respondent is about 8.46 liters only at a
purchase price of P50.00, in contrast to the receipts used by the respondent
which reflects an average of 108.45 liters at a purchase price of P550.00. Here,
the greed of the respondent is made manifest by his act of claiming
reimbursements of more than 10 times the value of what he actually spends.
While only 15 of the gasoline receipts were ascertained to have been falsified,
the motive, the pattern and the scheme employed by the respondent in
defrauding the government has, nevertheless, been established.
That the gasoline receipts have been falsified was not rebutted by the
respondent. In fact, he had in effect admitted that he had been claiming for the
payment of an average consumption of 108.45 liters/day by justifying that this
was being used by the 4 vehicles issued to his office. Besides he also admitted
having signed the receipts.
Respondent's act in defrauding the government of a considerable sum of
money by falsifying receipts constitutes not only Dishonesty of a high degree
but also a criminal offense for Malversation through Falsification of Official
Documents.
This committee likewise finds that the respondent have (sic) unliquidated
cash advances in the year 1989 which is in violation of established office and
auditing rules. His cash advances totaling to about P116,000.00 were properly
documented. The requests for obligation of allotments and the vouchers
covering the amounts were all signed by him. The mere certification issued by
the Administrative Officer of the DAR-CAR cannot therefore rebut these
concrete evidences (sic).
On the third complaint, this committee likewise believes that the
respondent's act in relieving the complainant of her functions as a Regional
Cashier on December 1, 1989 was an act of harassment. It is noted that this
was done barely two weeks after the complainant filed charges against her
(sic). The recommendation of Jose G. Medina of the Commission on Audit
came only on May 11, 1990 or almost six months after the respondent's order
relieving the complainant was issued. His act in harassing a subordinate
employee in retaliation to a complaint she filed constitute(s) Gross Misconduct
on the part of the respondent who is a head of office.
The affidavits of Joseph In-uyay and Josefina Guting are of no help to
the respondent. In fact, this only show(s) that he is capable of giving bribes if
only to have the cases against him dismissed. He could not have given a
certain Benigno Aquino III the sum of P10,000.00 for any other purpose."
Accordingly, the investigating committee recommended Lumiqued's dismissal or
removal from office, without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate criminal charges
against him.
Acting on the report and recommendation, former Justice Secretary Franklin M.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Drilon adopted the same in his Memorandum to President Fidel V. Ramos dated
October 22, 1992. He added that the filing of the affidavit of desistance 11 would not
prevent the issuance of a resolution on the matter considering that what was at stake
was not only "the violation of complainant's (herein private respondent's) personal
rights" but also "the competence and fitness of the respondent (Lumiqued) to remain in
public office." He opined that, in fact, the evidence on record could call for "a punitive
action against the respondent on the initiative of the DAR."
On December 17, 1992, Lumiqued filed a motion for reconsideration of "the
findings of the Committee" with the DOJ. 12 Undersecretary Ramon S. Esguerra
indorsed the motion to the investigating committee. 13 In a letter dated April 1, 1993, the
three-member investigating committee informed Undersecretary Esguerra that the
committee "had no more authority to act on the same (motion for reconsideration)
considering that the matter has already been forwarded to the Office of the President"
and that their authority under Department Order No. 145 ceased when they transmitted
their report to the DOJ. 14 Concurring with this view, Undersecretary Esguerra informed
Lumiqued that the investigating committee could no longer act on his motion for
reconsideration. He added that the motion was also prematurely filed because the
Office of the President (OP) had yet to act on Secretary Drilon's recommendation. 15
On May 12, 1993, President Fidel V. Ramos himself issued Administrative Order
No. 52 (A.O. No. 52), 16 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. Thus:
"That the receipts were merely turned over to him by his drivers and that
the auditor and accountant of the DAR-CAR should be the ones to be held
liable is untenable. The receipts in question were signed by respondent for the
purpose of attesting that those receipts were validly issued by the commercial
establishments and were properly disbursed and used in the official business
for which it was intended.LexLib

This Office is not about to shift the blame for all these to the drivers
employed by the DAR-CAR as respondent would want us to do."
The OP, however, found that the charges of oppression and harassment, as well
as that of incurring unliquidated cash advances, were not satisfactorily established.
In a "petition for appeal" 17 addressed to President Ramos, Lumiqued prayed that
A.O. No. 52 be reconsidered and that he be reinstated to his former position "with all
the benefits accorded to him by law and existing rules and regulations." This petition
was basically premised on the affidavit dated May 27, 1993, of a certain Dwight L.
Lumiqued, a former driver of the DAR-CAR, who confessed to having authored the
falsification of gasoline receipts and attested to petitioner Lumiqued's being an "honest
man" who had no "premonition" that the receipts he (Dwight) turned over to him were
"altered." 18
Treating the "petition for appeal" as a motion for reconsideration of A.O. No. 52,
the OP, through Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing, denied
the same on August 31, 1993.
Undaunted, Lumiqued filed a second motion for reconsideration, alleging, among
other things, that he was denied the constitutional right to counsel during the hearing. 19
On May 19, 1994, 20 however, before his motion could be resolved, Lumiqued died. On
September 28, 1994, 21 Secretary Quisumbing denied the second motion for
reconsideration for lack of merit.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Hence, the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus praying for the reversal of
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Committee, the October 22, 1992,
Memorandum of then Justice Secretary Drilon, A.O. No. 52 issued by President
Ramos, and the orders of Secretary Quisumbing. In a nutshell, it prays for the "payment
of retirement benefits and other benefits accorded to deceased Arsenio Lumiqued by
law, payable to his heirs; and the backwages from the period he was dismissed from
service up to the time of his death on May 19, 1994." 22
Petitioners fault the investigating committee for its failure to inform Lumiqued of
his right to counsel during the hearing. They maintain that his right to counsel could not
be waived unless the waiver was in writing and in the presence of counsel. They assert
that the committee should have suspended the hearing and granted Lumiqued a
reasonable time within which to secure a counsel of his own. If suspension was not
possible, the committee should have appointed a counsel de oficio to assist him.
These arguments are untenable and misplaced. The right to counsel, which
cannot be waived unless the waiver is in writing and in the presence of counsel, is a
right afforded a suspect or an accused during custodial investigation. 23 It is not an
absolute right and may, thus, be invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding and, with
more reason, in an administrative inquiry. In the case at bar, petitioners invoke the right
of an accused in criminal proceedings to have competent and independent counsel of
his own choice. Lumiqued, however, was not accused of any crime in the proceedings
below. The investigation conducted by the committee created by Department Order No.
145 was for the purpose of determining if he could be held administratively liable under
the law for the complaints filed against him. The order issued by Acting Secretary of
Justice Montenegro states thus:
"In the interest of the public service and pursuant to the provisions of
existing laws, a Committee to conduct the formal investigation of the
administrative complaint for oppression, dishonesty, disgraceful and immoral
conduct, being notoriously undesirable and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service against Mr. ARSENIO P. LUMIQUED, Regional Director,
Department of Agrarian Reform, Cordillera Autonomous Region, is hereby
created . . ." 24
As such, the hearing conducted by the investigating committee was not part of a
criminal prosecution. This was even made more pronounced when, after finding
Lumiqued administratively liable, it hinted at the filing of a criminal case for malversation
through falsification of public documents in its report and recommendation.
Petitioners' misconception on the nature of the investigation 25 conducted against
Lumiqued appears to have been engendered by the fact that the DOJ conducted it.
While it is true that under the Administrative Code of 1987, the DOJ shall "administer
the criminal justice system in accordance with the accepted processes thereof
consisting in the investigation of the crimes, prosecution of offenders and administration
of the correctional system," 26 conducting criminal investigations is not its sole function.
By its power to "perform such other functions as may be provided by law," 27
prosecutors may be called upon to conduct administrative investigations. Accordingly,
the investigating committee created by Department Order No. 145 was duty-bound to
conduct the administrative investigation in accordance with the rules therefor.
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 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, and no duty rests
on such a body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel. 28 In an
administrative proceeding such as the one that transpired below, a respondent (such as
Lumiqued) has the option of engaging the services of counsel or not. This is clear from
the provisions of Section 32, Article VII of Republic Act No. 2260 29 (otherwise known as
the Civil Service Act) and Section 39, paragraph 2, Rule XIV (on Discipline) of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 30 (otherwise known
as the Administrative Code of 1987). Excerpts from the transcript of stenographic notes
of the hearings attended by Lumiqued 31 clearly show that he was confident of his
capacity and so opted to represent himself . 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. LibLex

Furthermore, petitioners' reliance on Resolution No. 94-0521 of the Civil Service

Commission on the Uniform Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigation
stating that a respondent in an administrative complaint must be "informed of his right to
the assistance of a counsel of his choice," 32 is inappropriate. In the first place, this
resolution is applicable only to cases brought before the Civil Service Commission. 33
Secondly, said resolution, which is dated January 25, 1994, took effect fifteen days
following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation, 34 much later than the
July 1992 hearings of the investigating committee created by Department Order No.
145. Thirdly, the same committee was not remiss in the matter of reminding Lumiqued
of his right to counsel. Thus, at the July 3, 1992, hearing, Lumiqued was repeatedly
appraised of his option to secure the services of counsel:
"RSP EXEVEA:
This is an administrative case against Director Lumiqued. Director
Lumiqued is present. The complainant is present, Janet Obar-Zamudio.
Complainant has just been furnished with a copy of the counter-affidavit of
the respondent. Do you have a counsel, Director?
DIR. LUMIQUED:
I did not bring anybody, Sir, because when I went to see him, he told me,
Sir, that he has already set a hearing, morning and afternoon today.
RSP EXEVEA:

So, we will proceed with the hearing even without your counsel? You are
willing to proceed with the hearing even without your counsel?
DIR. LUMIQUED:

Yes, I am confident . . .
CP BALAJADIA:

You are confident that you will be able to represent yourself?

DIR. LUMIQUED:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 That is my concern." 35 (Emphasis supplied)

In the course of private respondent's damaging testimony, the investigating

committee once again reminded Lumiqued of his need for a counsel. Thus:
"CP BALAJADIA:

Q. (To Director Lumiqued) You really wish to go through with this even
without your counsel?
DIRECTOR LUMIQUED:

A. I think so, Sir.

CP BALAJADIA:

Let us make it of record that we have been warning you to proceed with
the assistance of counsel but you said that you can take care of yourself
so we have no other alternative but to proceed." 36 (Emphasis supplied)

Thereafter, the following colloquies transpired:

"CP BALAJADIA:
We will suspend in the meantime that we are waiting for the supplemental
affidavit you are going to present to us. Do you have any request from the
panel of investigators, Director Lumiqued?

DIRECTOR LUMIQUED:
I was not able to bring a lawyer since the lawyer I requested to assist me
and was the one who prepared my counter-affidavit is already engaged for
a hearing and according to him he is engaged for the whole month of July.

RSP EXEVEA:
We cannot wait. . .
CP BALAJADIA:
Why don't you engage the services of another counsel. The charges
against you are quite serious. We are not saying you are guilty already.
We are just apprehensive that you will go through this investigation without
a counsel. We would like you to be protected legally in the course of this
investigation. Why don't you get the services of another counsel. There
are plenty here in Baguio. . .
DIRECTOR LUMIQUED:
I will try to see, Sir. . .
CP BALAJADIA:

Please select your date now, we are only given one month to finish the
investigation, Director Lumiqued.

RSP EXEVEA:
We will not entertain any postponement. With or without counsel, we will
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 proceed.
CP BALAJADIA:
Madam Witness, will you please submit the document which we asked for
and Director Lumiqued, if you have other witnesses, please bring them but
reduce their testimonies in affidavit form so that we can expedite with the
proceedings." 37

At the hearing scheduled for July 10, 1992, Lumiqued still did not avail of the
services of counsel. Pertinent excerpts from said hearing follow:
"FISCAL BALAJADIA:
I notice also Mr. Chairman that the respondent is not being represented by
a counsel. The last time he was asked to invite his lawyer in this
investigation. May we know if he has a lawyer to represent him in this
investigation?
DIR. LUMIQUED:
There is none Sir because when I went to my lawyer, he told me that he
had set a case also at 9:30 in the other court and he told me if there is a
possibility of having this case postponed anytime next week, probably
Wednesday so we will have good time (sic) of presenting the affidavit.
FISCAL BALAJADIA:
Are you moving for a postponement Director? May I throw this to the
panel. The charges in this case are quite serious and he should be given a
chance to the assistance of a counsel/lawyer.
RSP EXEVEA:
And is (sic) appearing that the supplemental-affidavit has been furnished
him only now and this has several documents attached to it so I think we
could grant him one last postponement considering that he has already
asked for an extension.
DIR. LUMIQUED:

Furthermore Sir, I am now being bothered by my heart ailment."38

The hearing was reset to July 17, 1992, the date when Lumiqued was released
from the hospital. Prior to said date, however, Lumiqued did not inform the committee of
his confinement. Consequently, because the hearing could not push through on said
date, and Lumiqued had already submitted his counter-affidavit, the committee decided
to wind up the proceedings. This did not mean, however, that Lumiqued was short-
changed in his right to due process.
Lumiqued, a Regional Director of a major department in the executive branch of
the government, graduated from the University of the Philippines (Los Baños) with the
degree of Bachelor of Science major in Agriculture, was a recipient of various
scholarships and grants, and underwent training seminars both here and abroad. 39
Hence, he could have defended himself if need be, without the help of counsel, if truth
were on his side. This, apparently, was the thought he entertained during the hearings
he was able to attend. In his statement, "That is my concern," one could detect that it
had been uttered testily, if not exasperatedly, because of the doubt or skepticism
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 implicit in the question, "You are confident that you will be able to represent yourself?"
despite his having positively asserted earlier, "Yes, I am confident." He was obviously
convinced that he could ably represent himself. Beyond repeatedly reminding him that
he could avail himself of counsel and as often receiving the reply that he is confident of
his ability to defend himself, the investigating committee could not do more. One can
lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink.
The right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by the
Constitution or the law. In Nera v. Auditor General, 40 the Court said:
". . . There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a party in a non-
criminal proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that, without
such representation, he shall not be bound by such proceedings. The
assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable. The legal
profession was not engrafted in the due process clause such that without the
participation of its members, the safeguard is deemed ignored or violated. The
ordinary citizen is not that helpless that he cannot validly act at all except only
with a lawyer at his side."
In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the
opportunity to explain one's side. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation
but also, and perhaps even much more creditably as it is more practicable than oral
arguments, through pleadings. 41 An actual hearing is not always an indispensable
aspect of due process. 42 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. 43 Moreover, this
constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. 44 Lumiqued's appeal and his
subsequent filing of motions for reconsideration cured whatever irregularity attended
the proceedings conducted by the committee. 45
The constitutional provision on due process safeguards life, liberty and property.
46 In the early case of Cornejo v. Gabriel and Provincial Board of Rizal 47 the Court held
that a public office is not property within the sense of the constitutional guarantee of due
process of law for it is a public trust or agency. This jurisprudential pronouncement has
been enshrined in the 1987 Constitution under Article XI, Section 1, on accountability of
public officers, as follows:
"Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives."
When the dispute concerns one's constitutional right to security of tenure,
however, public office is deemed analogous to property in a limited sense; hence, the
right to due process could rightfully be invoked. Nonetheless, the right to security of
tenure is not absolute. Of equal weight is the countervailing mandate of the Constitution
that all public officers and employees must serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty
and efficiency. 48 In this case, it has been clearly shown that Lumiqued did not live up to
this constitutional precept.
The committee's findings pinning culpability for the charges of dishonesty and
grave misconduct upon Lumiqued were not, as shown above, fraught with procedural
mischief. Its conclusions were founded on the evidence presented and evaluated as
facts. Well-settled in our jurisdiction is the doctrine that findings of fact of administrative
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 agencies must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence,
even if such evidence is not overwhelming or preponderant. 49 The quantum of proof
necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is only substantial evidence or
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. 50
Consequently, the adoption by Secretary Drilon and the OP of the committee's
recommendation of dismissal may not in any way be deemed tainted with arbitrariness
amounting to grave abuse of discretion. Government officials are presumed to perform
their functions with regularity. Strong evidence is not necessary to rebut that
presumption, 51 which petitioners have not successfully disputed in the instant case. LexLib

Dishonesty is a grave offense penalized by dismissal under Section 23 of Rule

XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Under Section 9 of the same Rule, the penalty of dismissal carries with it "cancellation
of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and the disqualification
for reemployment in the government service." The instant petition, which is aimed
primarily at the "payment of retirement benefits and other benefits," plus back wages
from the time of Lumiqued's dismissal until his demise, must, therefore, fail.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus is hereby
DISMISSED and Administrative Order No. 52 of the Office of the President is
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Francisco and Panganiban, JJ ., concur.
Narvasa, C .J ., is on leave.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 37-75, including annexes.

2. Ibid., pp. 76-103, including annexes.

3. Id., pp. 104-105. Private respondent submitted a supplemental affidavit-complaint on July 6,

1992. This fourth complaint is substantially similar to the first complaint except that it
contained allegations of falsified gasoline receipts covering the month of April, 1989.

4. Id., pp. 107-115.

5. See Footnote 11, infra.

6. Rollo, p. 123.

7. Ibid., p. 131.

8. Id., pp. 167-168.

9. Id., pp. 169-170.

10. Petitioners did not attach a copy of the investigating committee's report to their petition. It is
found in the folder containing the transcripts of stenographic notes that the Judicial
Records Office of this Court had requested from the Office of the Solicitor General.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 11. The affidavit of desistance was executed on July 10, 1991. When she testified on July 3,
1992, Ms. Zamudio swore that she executed that affidavit because of the length of time
that transpired before her complaints were acted upon, and that Lumiqued was already
"pressuring" her and her family that, considering that she had children, she succumbed
to the pressure (TSN, July 3, 1992, p. 10).

12. Rollo, pp. 174-190.

13. Ibid, p. 199.

14. Id., p. 200.

15. Id., p. 202.

16. Id., pp. 32-35.

17. Id., pp. 203-216.

18. Id., pp. 217-218.

19. Id., pp. 225-247.

20. Id., pp. 272-273.

21. Id., p. 36.

22. Id., pp. 27-28,

23. Article III, Section 12(1), 1987 Constitution. Custodial investigation has been defined as ". .
. any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is only
after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins
to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries
out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that
the rule (on the right of an accused to be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel of his choice) begins to operate (People v.
Marra, 236 SCRA 565 [1994]).

24. A copy of this Department Order is found in the folder of photocopies of the transcript of
stenographic notes that the Office of the Solicitor General furnished the Judicial
Records Office of this Court.

25. In his motion for reconsideration dated December 17, 1992, Lumiqued charged the
investigating committee with having viewed the case against him "from purely tenuous
technical angle" thereby leading the Secretary of Justice to arrive at his
recommendation "contrary to the spirit if not to the letters of Revised Penal Code and
the Administrative Code and COA Rules and Regulations" (sic).

26. Sec. 1, Title III, Book IV, 1987 Administrative Code.

27. Sec. 3 (8), supra.

28. Bancroft v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of Oklahoma, 210 P. 2d 666 (1949).

29. "Sec. 31. Disciplinary Action. — No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed
or suspended except for cause as provided by law and after due process: Provided,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 That a transfer from one position to another without reduction in rank or salary shall not
be considered disciplinary when made in the interest of public service: Provided, further,
That no complaint against a civil service official or employee shall be given due course
unless the same is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the complainant: And
provided, finally, That the respondent shall be entitled to a formal investigation if he so
elects, in which case he shall have the right to appear and defend himself at said
investigation in person or by counsel, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses
against him, and to have the attendance of witnesses and production of documents in
his favor by compulsory process of subpoena or subpoena duces tecum. (Emphasis
supplied)

30. "Sec. 39. . .

Either party may avail himself of the services of counsel and may require the attendance
of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence in his favor through the
compulsory process of subpoena or subpoena duces tecum. . . ." (Emphasis supplied)

31. Infra.

32. "Section 21. Formal charge. — When the Commission finds the existence of a prima facie
case, the respondent shall be formally charged. He shall be furnished copies of the
complaint, sworn statements and other documents submitted by the complainant,
unless he had already received the same during the preliminary investigation. The
respondent shall be given at least seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of said formal
charge to submit his answer under oath, together with the affidavits of his witnesses
and other evidence, and a statement indicating whether or not he elects a formal
investigation. He shall also be informed of his right to the assistance of a counsel of his
choice. If the respondent has already submitted his comment and counter-affidavits
during the preliminary investigation, he shall be given the opportunity to submit
additional evidence." (Emphasis supplied).

33. Section 2, CSC Resolution No. 94-0521.

34. Ibid., Sec. 55.

35. TSN, July 3, 1992, pp. 1-2.

36. Ibid., pp. 13-14.

37. Id., pp. 18-19.

38. TSN, July 10, 1992, pp. 3-4.

39. Rollo, p. 206.

40. 164 SCRA 1 (1988), cited in Feeder v. International Line, Pte., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 197
SCRA 842 (1991).

41. Concerned Officials of MWSS v. Vasquez, 310 Phil. 549, citing Mutuc v. Court of Appeals,
190 SCRA 43 (1990).

42. Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) v. Civil Service Commission, 311 Phil. 573.

43. Legarda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94457, October 16, 1997.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 44. Pizza Hut/Progressive Development Corporation v. NLRC, 322 Phil. 579.

45. Rubenecia v. Civil Service Commission, 314 Phil. 612; T.H. Valderama & Sons, Inc. and/or
Roberto Tinsay v. Drilon, 181 SCRA 308 (1990).

46. Section 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution.

47. 41 Phil. 188.

48. De Luna v. Ricon, 250 SCRA 1 (1995).

49. Ynson v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 411 (1996).

50. Office of the Court Administrator v. Bucoy, 235 SCRA 588 (1994), citing Tolentino v. Court
of Appeals, 150 SCRA 26 (1987) and Biak-na-Bato Mining Company v. Tanco, Jr., 193
SCRA 323 (1991).

51. Tatad v. Garcia, Jr., 313 Phil. 296.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com