Consti2Digest - Umali Vs Guingona, 305 SCRA 533, G.R. No.
131124 (21 Mar 1999)
Facts:
Osmundo Umali the petitioner was appointed Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue by Pres
Fidel V. Ramos. He assigned him in Manila, November 29, 1993 to March 15, 1994 and Makati, March 16,
1994 to August 4, 1994. On August 1, 1994, President Ramos received a confidential memorandum against
the petitioner for alleged violations of internal revenue laws, rules and regulations during his incumbency
as Regional Director, more particularly the following malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. upon
receipt of the said confidential memorandum, former President authorized the issuance of an Order for
the preventive suspension of the petitioner and immediately referred the Complaint against the latter to
the Presidential Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption (PCAGC), for investigation. Petitioner was duly
informed of the charges against him. And directed to send in his answer, copies of his Statement of Assets,
and Liabilities for the past three years (3), and Personal Data Sheet. Initial hearing was set on August 25,
1994, at 2:00 p.m., at the PCAGC Office. On August 23, the petitioner filed his required answer. After
evaluating the evidence on record, the PCAGC issued its Resolution of September 23, 1994, finding a prima
facie evidence to support six (6) of the twelve (12) charges against petitioner. On October 6, 1994, acting
upon the recommendation of the PCAGC, then President Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 152
dismissing petitioner from the service, with forfeiture of retirement and all benefits under the law.
Issue:
1. Whether or Not AO No. 152 violated petitioner's Right to Security of Tenure.
2. Whether or Not Petitioner was denied due process of law
3. Whether or Not the PCAGC is a validly Constituted government agency and whether the petitioner
can raise the issue of constitutionality belatedly in its motion for reconsideration of the trial courts
decision.
4. Whether or Not the ombudsman's resolution dismissing the charges against the petitioner is still basis
for the petitioner's dismissal with forfeiture of benefits as ruled in AO No. 152
Held:
Petitioner maintains that as a career executive service officer, he can only be removed for cause and under
the Administrative Code of 1987, 6 loss of confidence is not one of the legal causes or grounds for removal.
Consequently, his dismissal from office on the ground of loss confidence violated his right to security of
tenure, petitioner theorized. After a careful study, we are of the irresistible conclusion that the Court of
Appeals ruled correctly on the first three Issue. To be sure, petitioner was not denied the right to due
process before the PCAGC. Records show that the petitioner filed his answer and other pleadings with
respect to his alleged violation of internal revenue laws and regulations, and he attended the hearings
before the investigatory body. It is thus decisively clear that his protestation of non-observance of due
process is devoid of any factual or legal basis. Neither can it be said that there was a violation of what
petitioner asserts as his security of tenure. According to petitioner, as a Regional Director of Bureau of
Internal Revenue, he is CESO eligible entitled to security of tenure. However, petitioner's claim of CESO
eligibility is anemic of evidentiary support. It was incumbent upon him to prove that he is a CESO eligible
but unfortunately, he failed to adduce sufficient evidence on the matter. His failure to do so is fatal. As
regards the issue of constitutionality of the PCAGC, it was only posed by petitioner in his motion for
reconsideration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. It was certainly too late to raise for the first
time at such late stage of the proceedings. As to last issue, It is worthy to note that in the case under
consideration, the administrative action against the petitioner was taken prior to the institution of the
criminal case. The charges included in Administrative Order No. 152 were based on the results of
investigation conducted by the PCAGC and not on the criminal charges before the Ombudsman. In sum,
the petition is dismissable on the ground that the Issue posited by the petitioner do not constitute a valid
legal basis for overturning the finding and conclusion arrived at by the Court of Appeals. However, taking
into account the antecedent facts and circumstances aforementioned, the Court, in the exercise of its
equity powers, has decided to consider the dismissal of the charges against petitioner before the
Ombudsman, the succinct and unmistakable manifestation by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue that his office is no longer interested in pursuing the case, and the position taken by the Solicitor
General, that there is no more basis for Administrative Order No. 152, as effective and substantive
supervening events that cannot be overlooked.
