G.R. No. 186502.
December 13, 2017 (Case Brief / Digest)
**Title:** Carlos R. Saunar v. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, et al.
**Facts:** Carlos R. Saunar, former Regional Director of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), was dismissed from government service due to allegations of being
Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from March 24, 2005, to May 2006. The dismissal was based
on a recommendation by then NBI Director Reynaldo Wycoco, charging Saunar for failing to
report for work without an approved leave for four months. Following his reassignment and
alleged failure to report to a designated supervisor, Saunar was charged by the Presidential
Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and eventually dismissed following a decision by the Office of
the President (OP), which was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Saunar
appealed to the Supreme Court (SC), claiming violations of due process and arguing against
the findings of gross neglect of duty and AWOL.
**Issues:**
1. Whether Saunar was denied due process in the administrative proceedings leading to his
dismissal.
2. Whether the CA erred in affirming the OP’s decision, implicating Saunar in gross neglect
of duty and AWOL.
**Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court sided with Saunar, holding that his dismissal from
government service was without due process and reversed the CA’s decision. It pointed out
procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings, notably the PAGC’s failure to
notify Saunar of clarificatory hearings and its neglect to allow him an opportunity to
confront witnesses or be informed of the charges in a timely manner. The SC also reasoned
that Saunar’s inability to report for duty was not out of willful neglect but due to the
absence of specific assignments from his superiors, negating the charges of gross neglect of
duty and AWOL. Further, the Court opined that Saunar’s participation in court hearings as
per directives showed no intention to neglect his duties. Consequently, Saunar was entitled
to full back wages from the time of his illegal dismissal until his retirement, along with
retirement benefits.
**Doctrine:** The case clarifies the requirements of administrative due process,
emphasizing the necessity for fair hearing and the opportunity to confront witnesses in
administrative proceedings. It also sets a precedent for the entitlement of illegally dismissed
government employees to full back wages and retirement benefits.
**Class Notes:**
© 2024 - batas.org | 1
G.R. No. 186502. December 13, 2017 (Case Brief / Digest)
– **Due process in administrative proceedings** requires fairness, opportunity for a
hearing, and the chance to confront witnesses and present evidence.
– **Gross Neglect of Duty** is characterized by a willful and intentional failure to perform a
duty, distinguished from mere inability to perform duties due to lack of assignment.
– **Absence Without Leave (AWOL)** in administrative law can constitute an administrative
offense leading to dismissal; however, context matters, and the absence must be shown to
be willful or negligent.
– **Entitlement to Back Wages and Benefits**: Illegally dismissed government employees
are entitled to full back wages from the time of their dismissal until their actual
reinstatement or, if reinstatement is not possible, until retirement, including any benefits
they would have normally received.
**Historical Background:** This case highlights the intricacies of administrative law and due
process in the context of public service employment in the Philippines. It underscores the
essential balance between the accountability of government officials and their rights as
employees, against the backdrop of procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing.
© 2024 - batas.org | 2
