DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated March 27, 2014 and Resolution dated July 11, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 122846 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board dated December 16, 2011 which declared Lot No. 554-D-3 EXEMPT from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and consequently ordered the CANCELLATION of the Certificates of Land Ownership Award issued in the name of respondents is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

IN THIS CASE RESPONDENT AND CA RELIED ON AN ORDER OF THE DAR SECRETARY WHICH PERTAINS TO OTHER LOTS. THE LOT IN QUESTION WAS ALREADY DECLARED AS EXEMPTED FROM DAR COVERAGE AND IN FACT WAS ALREADY EXPROPRIATED AND IS NOW PART OF SCTEX.

To the Court’s mind, the resolution of the DAR Secretary in DARCO Order No. EX-0712-489 was precisely the reason why the DARAB reversed its earlier decision and upheld the exemption granted to SVHFI. As correctly found by the DAR Secretary, respondents could not have derived any vested right over the subject property despite the issuance of CLOAs in their favor because the coverage of the property was erroneous to begin with. SVHFI, as original owner of Lot No. 554-D-3, was never divested of its rights over the same, including the right to apply for exemption. What is more, the results of the ocular inspection revealed that majority of the portions of Lot No. 554-D[1]3 have already been developed into what is now known as the SCTEX. This, in itself, is a clear indication that the land had indeed been reclassified into non-agricultural purposes and no longer feasible for agricultural production. To hold otherwise would not only be a waste of government resources, but also expand the scope of the agrarian reform program which has been limited to lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture.

As pronounced by the CA itself, the findings of the DAR Secretary are accorded great weight and respect. Considering his technical expertise on the matter, courts cannot simply brush aside his pronouncements regarding status of a land, a subject well within his field, absent palpable and overriding error or grave abuse of discretion that would result in manifest injustice and grave misapplication of the law.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 16, 2015 and Resolution dated February 4, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 131302 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The formal charge and order of suspension are hereby declared invalid and without legal effect.

The payment of back salaries owed to Stefani C. Sano shall be either in the form of leave credits, ifhe is still active in government service, OR leave credits monetized at the current rate for the position he formerly occupied, at his option.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

GARCIA ISSUED A FORMAL CHARGE AGAINST SANO FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT, GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY  ETC WITHOUT CONDUCTING PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION SINCE HE SAID HE PERSONALLY WITNESSED THE ACTS OF PETITIONER. SUPREME COURT SAID THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. THERE SHOULD BE A SHOW CAUSE ORDER FIRST AND THEN A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.

In the present case, Garcia gravely deviated from the procedure outlined in the RRACCS .. Garcia issued a formal charge arid order of preventive suspension charging petitioner with grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, dishonesty and cj:mduct prejudicial to the interest of the · service without undergoing preliminary investigation. Garcia claimed that he need not conduct preliminary investigation since he personallywitnessed the acts of petitioner, hence, there is already a prima facie case to support a formal charge.

To recapitulate, if it is the disciplining authority that initiated the administrative process, there is a need to issue a show-cause order directing the person complained of, to explain the acts complained of. Then there should be a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is a clear-cut case.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUIRED PROCEDURE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?

TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF A PERSON CHARGED OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE TO BE HEARD.

After the determination of a prima facie case, a formal charge will be issued, and the person charged will be made to submit an answer. These procedural steps are anchored on protecting the constitutional right of a person charged of an administrative offense, to be heard. This is because a violation of such process raises a serious jurisdictional issue that cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. The constitutional guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process is unqualified by the type of proceedings where he/she stands to lose the same.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF VIOLATING THE DUE PROCESS PROCEDURE?

THE FORMAL CHARGE AND ORDER OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ARE INVALID AND WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT.

In the present case, the procedural faux pas committed by Garcia consists in committing a shortcut on the administrative process by issuing a formal charge and the order of suspension without issuing a show cause order and subsequently conducting a preliminary investigation. As a result of violating the constitutional right of petitioner to due process, the formal charge and the order of preventive suspension has no legal leg to stand on. Thus, the formal charge and the order of preventive suspension are declared to be invalidly issued and without legal effect.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The July 10, 2013 Decision and November 4, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 126064 are AFFIR.t’1.ED. Petitioner Evelina E. Belarso’s dismissal is valid. No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

APPELLANT WAS CAUGHT STEALING BELT BUCKLE, COMPANY PROPERTY. SHE WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF LOSS OF TRUST.

Further, while Belarso insists that the charge imputed  against her defies logic and common experience, ti.’w records show that she had a propensity to violate company rules and regulations.

APPELLANT ALSO QUESTIONS THE AFFIDAVITS EXECUTED BY THE GUARDS AND HER CO-EMPLOYEES. BUT THESE WERE DEEMED TO CARRY WEIGHT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOTARIZED.

Belarso also assails the affidavits executed by the guards and her co[1]employees for being similarly worded a..nd executed on the same day, and for being dated two months after the incident. However, these do not automatically invalidate the contents of the affidavits. Being duly notarized, they carry with them the presu..’!lption of regularity aJJ.d authenticity which may be rebutted only by “strong, complete and conclusive proof.”57 This, Belarso was unable to present.

BELARSO ARGUES THAT THE PENALTY IS TOO HARSH CONSIDERING HER 34 YEARS OF SERVICE. LENGTH OF SERVICES IS NOT A BARGAINING CHIP.

Belarso finally argues that the penalty is too harsh considering her 34 years of service in the company. However, length of service is not a bargaining chip that can simply be stacked against the employer. 59 Under the present circumstances, length of service only aggravates Belarso’s offense. First, she held a position of trust and confidence, overseeing the custody of the raw materials she tried to steal. As a supervisor, greater trust was placed on her by QHI. Second, her infraction affected the very essence of loyalty and honesty which all employees owe to their employers. It was serious, grave, and reflected adversely on her character.

AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO CONTINUE THE EMPLOYMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE IN WHOM THERE HAS BEEN A LEGITIMATE LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE.

In fine, vVe find Belarso’s dismissal for loss of trust and confidence valid. Indeed, “[w]hile the State can regulate the right of an employer to select and discharge his or her employees, an. employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of an employee in whom there has been a legitimate loss of trust and confidence.”60

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.