Office of the Ombudsman vs. Conti

A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally; where a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard through failure to receive proper notice, the adjudicating body is ousted of jurisdiction, and any judgment rendered is void, requiring remand of the case for proper proceedings.

The Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman filed an administrative complaint against Chairman Camilo L. Sabio and Commissioners Narciso S. Nario, Teresito L. Javier, Ricardo M. Abcede, and Nicasio A. Conti of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The complaint alleged that Resolution No. 2007-010, which authorized the lease of five vehicles from United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) without public bidding and without ensuring the availability of appropriated funds, violated laws and administrative issuances. The Ombudsman found all five commissioners administratively liable for Dishonesty, Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

• The Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against PCGG Chairman Camilo L. Sabio and Commissioners Narciso S. Nario, Teresito L. Javier, Ricardo M. Abcede, and Nicasio A. Conti for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
• The complaint stemmed from Resolution No. 2007-010, issued and signed by the PCGG Commissioners, which resolved to lease five new vehicles from a leasing company and resulted in lease agreements in 2007 and 2009 between PCGG and the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB).
• The FIO alleged that the resolution violated laws and administrative issuances requiring availability of appropriated funds and public bidding as prerequisites for government contracts.
• On April 5, 2010, the Ombudsman ordered the PCGG Commissioners to file counter-affidavits; all commissioners except Conti complied.
• Two criminal Informations were subsequently filed before the Sandiganbayan against all commissioners for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
• On August 26, 2011, the Ombudsman found all five commissioners administratively liable for Dishonesty, Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, imposing a fine equivalent to six months' salary.
• Conti claimed he only learned of the cases through news reports and the ABS-CBN website; he secured photocopies of the criminal case records from the Sandiganbayan on February 16, 2012, showing his copy of the decision was sent to "30 Bituan St., North Araneta Avenue, Quezon City" on February 1, 2012.
• Conti had moved from the Araneta Avenue address to #1 F. Sevilla St., Sevilla Townhomes, Barangay Pedro Cruz, San Juan City in 2006.
• Conti was separated from the PCGG service as of August 2008, making it impossible for him to receive notices sent to the PCGG office.
• The registry receipt showed the notice was returned unserved with a notation that the addressee moved and left no forwarding address.
• Conti asserted he never received any subpoena, notice, or order from the Ombudsman during the administrative and criminal investigation.
• On April 2, 2012, Conti filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging denial of due process; the Ombudsman denied this on May 25, 2012.

• The Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that Conti was not denied due process as notices were served at the addresses stated in his employment records at the PCGG, which were the only addresses available to the Ombudsman.
• The OSG cited Ruivivar v. Office of the Ombudsman to support the argument that there was no denial of due process when a party received copies of affidavits which were never controverted.
• The OSG emphasized that Conti's Motion for Reconsideration was considered by the Ombudsman, where he controverted the allegations and presented evidence, and the Ombudsman re-evaluated the evidence for months before affirming the administrative liability.
• The OSG argued that the CA erred in ruling that Conti could not be held liable because no particular rule covered the lease agreement, citing COA Circular No. 85-55-A which requires public bidding for lease-purchase of equipment including service vehicles.
• The OSG contended that the "long standing practice" of the PCGG could not justify bypassing public bidding requirements under R.A. No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act) and COA Circular No. 85-55-A.
• The OSG asserted that the defense of urgent necessity was belatedly thought of only after the case was filed, as Resolution No. 2007-010 made no mention of urgency.

• Respondent Nicasio A. Conti insisted he was deprived of his right to due process as there was no record showing he was notified of the proceedings until the Ombudsman rendered its decision.
• Conti emphasized that "due process of law contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered."
• He argued that even in his Motion for Reconsideration, he never had a fair opportunity to intelligently answer or refute the accusations because he was not furnished with affidavits or other evidence considered by the Ombudsman.
• Conti pointed out that all he had when filing his Motion for Reconsideration was a copy of the Ombudsman decision and the two informations in the criminal cases.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent Nicasio A. Conti was denied due process in the administrative proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent Nicasio A. Conti is not liable for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court held that Conti was indeed deprived of his constitutional right to due process.
  • The Court ruled that procedural due process in administrative proceedings requires that a person be notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself; the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity to answer constitute the minimum requirements.
  • The Court found that Conti was never given an opportunity to air his side as he was not furnished with a copy of the Ombudsman order requiring him to file a counter-affidavit.
  • The Court noted that notices were sent to the PCGG office when Conti was no longer a Commissioner (having been separated in August 2008) and to his previous address in Araneta Avenue, Quezon City, which were returned unserved with a notation that the addressee moved and left no forwarding address.
  • The Court distinguished Ruivivar v. Office of the Ombudsman, noting that in that case, the petitioner was furnished with pleadings and given time to file responsive pleadings, whereas Conti was never properly apprised of the cases against him.
  • The Court held that a decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally; the violation of the right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue that cannot be disregarded.
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling on the substantive merits of the case.
  • The Court held that with the violation of Conti's right to due process, any judgment arising from it is void, whether favorable or otherwise to him.
  • The Court ruled that the CA should have ordered the remand of the case to the Ombudsman instead of resolving the substantive issues, as Conti was primarily questioning the violation of his right to due process.
  • The Court noted that although Conti discussed the merits in his petition, this was merely precautionary, and the CA should have refrained from rendering judgment on the merits and instead remanded the case to provide Conti the opportunity to be heard.
  • The case was remanded to the Ombudsman for appropriate action to officially furnish Conti with complete records and allow him to file appropriate pleadings in his defense.

• Procedural Due Process in Administrative Proceedings — Defined as the opportunity to explain one's side or seek reconsideration; requires notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered affecting one's person or property. In this case, the Court applied this to find that sending notices to a former office and old address that were returned unserved constituted a denial of due process.
• Void Ab Initio Doctrine for Lack of Due Process — A decision rendered without due process is void from the beginning and may be attacked directly or collaterally. The Court applied this to hold that the Ombudsman's decision was void for lack of jurisdiction due to the due process violation.
• Effect of Due Process Violation on Jurisdiction — The violation of the state's right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue; where denial of due process is apparent, courts are ousted of jurisdiction. The Court invoked this to invalidate both the Ombudsman's decision and the CA's substantive ruling.

• "Procedural due process is that which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. It contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered affecting one's person or property."
• "The essence of due process, therefore, as applied to administrative proceedings, is an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of."
• "The doctrine consistently adhered to by this Court is that a decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally. A decision is void for lack of due process if, as a result, a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard."
• "The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction. Thus, the violation of the States right to due process raises a serious jurisdiction issue which cannot be glossed over or 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. Any judgment or decision rendered notwithstanding such violation may be regarded as a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever it exhibits its head."

• Ruivivar v. Office of the Ombudsman — Cited by the OSG to argue that furnishing copies of affidavits cures due process defects; distinguished by the Court because in Ruivivar the petitioner was given opportunity to file responsive pleadings after receiving documents, whereas Conti was never furnished with the records.
• Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations — Cited for the requirement that decision must be rendered on the basis of evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
• Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman — Cited for the definition of due process in administrative proceedings as the opportunity to explain one's side or seek reconsideration.
• Uy v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the doctrine that decisions rendered without due process are void ab initio.
• People v. Duca — Cited for the principle that violation of due process raises serious jurisdictional issues and renders decisions void.
• Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. Jesus Panaguiton — Cited for the definition of procedural due process.

• Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution — Guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor denied equal protection of the law; basis for the due process claim.
• Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Basis for the criminal informations filed against the commissioners before the Sandiganbayan.
• COA Circular No. 85-55-A — Requires public bidding for lease-purchase of equipment including service vehicles; cited by OSG to show violation of procurement rules.
• Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), Article XVI of Article IV and Section 48 — Cited regarding alternative methods of procurement and requirements for negotiated procurement.
• Section 52 (B) (2) and (A) (20), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Basis for the penalty of suspension and fine imposed by the Ombudsman.
• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — Procedural basis for the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Ombudsman before the Supreme Court.