Avenido V CSC

G.R. No. 177666 April 30, 2008 PER CURIAM, J.
CURIAM, J.: side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.
EUGENIO R. AVENIDO, petitioner,
vs. In the instant case, petitioner was furnished a copy of the charges
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent. against him and he was able to file an answer and present evidence
in his defense. Consequently, a decision was rendered by the NTC
An administrative complaint was filed by Marcelo Bunag, the acting finding him guilty of an offense which was not specifically designated
assessor and processor of the Amateur, Dealer and Manufacturer in the Show Cause Order, but was still based on acts that were
Service of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) alleged therein, specifically, making an assessment for the Order of
licensing unit, against petitioner Eugenio Avenido, an Administrative Payment for an applicant who had not even complied with the
Officer at the NTC, pursuant to an investigation conducted by Arnold requirements; and personally delivering the Order of Payment to the
Barcelona, the Engineer V and Chief of the Enforcement & Monitoring Cashier, instead of turning over the documents to the authorized
Section of the NTC. officer, who should deliver the same to the Cashier.
The investigation showed that Animus International, a corporation Clearly, therefore, due process was observed in this case.
engaged in the business of importing mobile telephone units and
Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards, did not file any application
for a Permit to Import, an important requisite before the preparation
of an Order of Payment and the issuance of a Permit to Import.
Animus International was able to import

approximately P40,000,000.00 worth of cellular phone SIM cards, as
petitioner Avenido personally prepared an Order of Payment for a
Permit to Import Cellular Phones in favor of Animus International.
Bunag and Barcelona confronted petitioner Avenido regarding the

irregularity of the issuance of the Permit to Import. Hence, the NTC
issued a Show Cause Order, wherein the above-mentioned incidents
were recounted in detail, and petitioner was formally charged with
Dishonesty, Usurpation of Official Function and Falsification of Public
Document.
During the formal investigation conducted by the NTC, Avenido was

given an opportunity to present his defense. He submitted a
certification by the NBI stating that the signature appearing in the
Permit to Import was not his, as it was forged.
In its Decision, the NTC found petitioner liable for Conduct Grossly
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, as affirmed by the CSC
and CA.
Petitioner claims that he was deprived of due process of law when

the NTC, thru a Show Cause Order, charged him with Dishonesty,
Falsification of Public Documents and Usurpation of Authority, and
then found him guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service, an offense which he avers is so different from the offenses
with which he was earlier charged.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner was afforded ample due

process of law. YES.
RULING:
This Court has already ruled in Dadubo v. Civil Service Commission,

that the designation of the offense or offenses with which a person is
charged in an administrative case is not controlling and one may be
found guilty of another offense, where the substance of the
allegations and evidence presented sufficiently proves one's guilt:
It is true that the petitioner was formally charged with conduct

prejudicial to the best interest of the bank and not specifically
with embezzlement. Nevertheless, the allegations and the
evidence presented sufficiently proved her guilt of
embezzlement of bank funds, which is unquestionably
prejudicial to the best interest of the bank.
The charge against the respondent in an administrative case

need not be drafted with the precision of an information in a
criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is apprised of the
substance of the charge against him; what is controlling is the
allegation of the acts complained of, not the designation of the
offense.
Due process mandates that a party be afforded reasonable

opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in
support of his defense. In administrative proceedings such as the one
at bench, due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's

Avenido V CSC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Avenido V CSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 177666 April 30, 2008 PER CURIAM, J.

Animus International was able to import

Bunag and Barcelona confronted petitioner Avenido regarding the

During the formal investigation conducted by the NTC, Avenido was

Petitioner claims that he was deprived of due process of law when

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner was afforded ample due

This Court has already ruled in Dadubo v. Civil Service Commission,

It is true that the petitioner was formally charged with conduct

The charge against the respondent in an administrative case

Due process mandates that a party be afforded reasonable

You might also like