Cardinal Rules and Requisites for
the Valid Exercise of
Administrative Disciplinary
Action
Administrative Investigation (A Manual for
Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan Members)
By John Reyl L. Mosquito, LLB
Reviewer on Local Governance
By Atty. Erwin M. Enad
Handbook on Local Governance
By Judge Eleuterio L. Bathan
Handbook on Administrative Disciplinary and
Sexual Harassment Cases in the Civil service
By Atty. Michael Anthony N. Clemente
1. Settlement of Boundary Dispute
Jurisdictional Responsibility for Settlement of
Boundary Dispute
2. Disciplinary Actions against Elective
Local Officials
Administrative Disciplinary Action
Criminally
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Civilly
Preponderance of Evidence
Administratively
Substantial Evidence
Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the
administrative body; and
Due process must be observed in the conduct
of the proceedings.
Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the
administrative body;
Power and authority to hear, try and decide a case
(Herrera v. Baretto, 25 Phil 245)
Conferred by the Constitution and Statutes and
those necessarily implied (Velunta v. Chief, 157
SCRA 147)
Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the
administrative body;
A decision of a court or a quasi-judicial
administrative body without jurisdiction is NULL
and VOID; hence, it can never logically become
final and executory. Such a judgment may be
attacked directly or collaterally. (Montoya v.
Varilla, 574 SCRA 831)
Jurisdiction over administrative complaint
filed against erring local elective officials:
Ombudsman (RA 6770); and
President or Higher Sanggunians (LGC 1991)
▪ Sangguniang Bayan/Panglungsod – Elective Barangay
Officials
▪ Sangguniang Panlalawigan – Elective Municipal Officials
▪ President – Elective official of a Province, HUC, ICC or CC
Jurisdiction over the COMPLAINANT
Upon filing of a verified complaint
▪ Purpose: to secure assurance that the allegations therein
made are done in good faith or are true and correct, and not
mere speculation.(Joson v. Torres citing Vda. De Gabriel v.
CA, 264 SCRA 137)
Jurisdiction over the RESPONDENT
Upon proper service of summons
Due process must be observed in the
conduct of the proceedings
Due process in administrative proceedings simply
means the opportunity to explain one’s side or a
chance to seek reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of (Padilla v. NLRC, 273 SCRA
457; PLDT v. NLRC, 276 SCRA 1; Cordenillo v.
Executive Secretary, 276 SCRA 652)
Due process must be observed in the
conduct of the proceedings
The essence of due process is that a party is
afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard and to
submit any evidence he may have in support of his
defense (Concerned Officials of MWSS v.
Vasquez, GR No. 109113, January 25, 1995)
Due process must be observed in the
conduct of the proceedings
▪ Vital Elements: NOTICE and HEARING
Hence, the RESPONDENT must be NOTIFIED of
the case filed against him and be afforded FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND himself and PRESENT
HIS SIDE of the controversy.
Right to a hearing, which includes the right to
present one’s case and submit evidence in
support thereof;
Tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
Decision must have something to support
itself;
Evidence must be substantial;
Decision must be based on the evidence presented at
the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected;
Tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its
own independent consideration of the law and facts
of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of
a subordinate in arriving at a decision;
Board or body should, in all controversial questions,
render its decision in such manner that the parties to
the proceedings can know the various issues involved,
and the reason for the decision rendered.
Due process in administrative proceedings has
also been recognized to include the following:
Right to actual or constructive notice of the institution
of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal
rights;
Real opportunity to be heard personally or with the
assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and
evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights;
Due process in administrative proceedings has
also been recognized to include the following:
A tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so
constituted as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as
well as impartiality; and
Finding by said tribunal which is supported by
substantial evidence submitted for consideration
during the hearing or contained in the records or
made known to the parties affected (Montoya v.
Varilla, GR No. 180146, Dec. 18, 2008)
Violation of a party’s right to due process
raises a serious jurisdictional issue which
cannot be disregarded at will. Where the
denial of the fundamental right of due
process is apparent, a decision rendered in
disregard of that right is VOID for LACK OF
JURISDICTION (Montoya v. Varilla, 574
SCRA 831)
Disloyalty to the ROP;
All government officials owe allegiance to the ROP
(Sec 18, Art XI, Const)
All public officers and employees shall take an oath or
affirmation to uphold and defend the Constitution
(Sec 4, Art IX (B), Const)
An administrative, not criminal, case for disloyalty to
the Republic only requires substantial evidence
(Aguinaldo v. Santos, GR No. 94115, August 21,
1992)
Culpable Violation of the Constitution;
Deliberate and willful, not unintentional, violation of
the fundamental law
Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office,
gross negligence, or dereliction of duty;
Dishonesty – concealment or distortion of truth in a
matter of fact. It signifies absence of integrity,
disposition to betray, cheat, deceive or defraud, bad
faith (Arca v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., CA-
GR No. 17679-R, Nov 24, 1958)
Oppression – act of cruelty, severity, unlawful
exaction, domination, or excessive use of authority
(Salima v. Guingona, Jr., 326 Phil. 847)
Misconduct in Office – improper or wrongful conduct.
It is the transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of
duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent
and not mere error in judgement. It generally means
wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by
a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.
(Ombudsman v. Magno, 572 SCRA 272 [2008])
Misconduct in Office
▪ It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or
malfeasance warranting removal from office of an
officer, must have direct relation to and be connected
with the performance of official duties amounting
either to maladministration or willful, intentional
neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the
office. (Lacson v. Roque, En Banc Decision, GR No. L-
6225, Jan 10, 1953)
Neglect of Duty – is the omission or refusal,
without sufficient excuse, to perform an act or
duty, which it was the officer’s legal obligation to
perform (Sec. 8, PD 971), or the disregard of some
duty imposed by law (Murillo v. Mendoza, 66 Phil.
699)
Commission of any offense involving moral turpitude or
an offense punishable at least by prision mayor;
Imprisonment of 6 yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs
Offenses involving Moral Turpitude are the acts considered to
be immoral in itself (Tak Ng v. Republic, GR No. L-13017, 1959)
▪ Ex. Crimes Against Chastity – Concubinage, Adultery, Acts of
Lasciviousness, etc; Crimes Against Person - Rape
Moral Turpitude – conduct contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals (Marah v. State Bar of California, 210
Cal. 303, 291 P. 583)
Commission of any offense involving moral
turpitude or an offense punishable at least by
prision mayor;
Is prior conviction by final judgment a requirement before
an administrative complaint is filed on the ground of
commission of an offense involving moral turpitude?
▪ Conviction by final judgment is NOT required as a condition
precedent to administrative action EXCEPT in cases falling under
the second category, when the crime involving moral turpitude is
not linked with the performance of official duties, and for an
obvious reason. Not being associated with said duties, it should
not ordinarily warrant any administrative action, unless there be
previous final judgment of conviction (Festejo v. Crisologo, 17
SCRA 868, En Banc Decision)
2 Categories of Suspension:
Those related to the discharge of the function of
the officer concerned (neglect of duty,
oppression, corruption or other form of
maladministration of office); and
Those not so connected with said function
(Commission of any offense involving moral
turpitude)
Abuse of Authority
Excessive use of power or authority unbefitting of a public
official or acts committed in excess of one’s power or
authority conferred on him by law or outside one’s duties
and functions.
Abuse of authority or of discretion must be grave, as
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or depotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. (Tavera-
Luna Inc v. Nable, 67 Phil 340)
Unauthorized absences for 15 consecutive
working days, except in the case of
members of the Sanggunian
In the case of sanggunian members: unauthorized
absences for 4 consecutive sessions
In the case of sanggunian members: unauthorized
absences for 4 consecutive sessions
▪ Internal Discipline Mechanism (Sec. 50 [b] [5], RA 7160)
▪ 2 GROUNDS : 1] Disorderly behavior; and 2] Absences without
justifiable cause for 4 consecutive sessions
▪ NB: acts constituting the grounds must be committed in relation
to, on occasion of, or during the session. Acts committed outside
the session, or not related to the session of the sanggunian
cannot be the subject of internal disciplinary actions that can be
imposed by a sanggunian (DILG Opinion 83, s. 2004)
What are the requisites that must concur in order
to “automatically” expel a sanggunian member in
view of his conviction by final judgment?
▪ 2 REQUISITES:
▪ 1. The offender must have been convicted by final judgment to
imprisonment of at least one year; and
▪ 2. The conviction should be for a crime involving moral turpitude
(Sec. 50 [b] [5], RA 7160); DILG Opinion 23, s. 2007)
▪ NB: Should be provided in the Rules of Procedure
Application for, or acquisition of, foreign citizenship or
residence or the status of an immigrant of another country.
Under this ground, what is sanctioned is not only the acquisition
of foreign citizenship or residence or status of immigrant of
another country but also even the mere filing of an application
for any of such purposes. The reason is very obvious, local
elective officials are required to reside in the place where they
intend to be elected and to continue possessing such
qualification while serving office. It is even actual residency
which is required. Such requirement must be possessed not
merely on the election day but whole throughout the tenure.
(Frivaldo v. COMELEC, GR No. 87193, 23 June 1989)
Such other grounds as may be provided by the
LGC 1991; RA 6713; RA 3019; RPC; AC 1987, RA
9485 and others
Disloyalty to the ROP;
Culpable Violation of the Constitution;
Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office,
gross negligence, or dereliction of duty;
Commission of any offense involving moral
turpitude or an offense punishable by at least
prision mayor;
Abuse of authority;
Unauthorized absence for Fifteen (15)
consecutive working days, except in the case of
Sanggunian Members;
Application for, or acquisition of, foreign
citizenship or residence or the status of an
immigrant of another country; and
Such other grounds as may be provided by LGC
1991; RA 6713; RA 3019; AC 1987; RPC and such
other general and special laws applicable on the
matter.
NB: An elective local official may be removed from office on
the grounds enumerated in Sec. 60 by order of the proper
court.
The Sangguniang Bayan has no power to remove an elective
barangay offical. Apart from the Ombudsman, only a proper
court may do so. (Ombudsman v. Rodriguez, GR No. 172700,
July 23, 2010; Pablico v. Vilapando, GR No. 47870, July 31,
2002)
The extreme penalty that the sanggunian may impose on the
erring barangay official is suspension (Sangguniang Barangay
of Don Mariano Marcos, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya v.
Martinez, GR No. 170626, March 03, 2008)
**de**
salaMUCH
