TERESITA L. VERTUDES, 1 petitioner, vs.

JULIE BUENAFLOR and BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeal
J Puno

FACTS
 Teresita L. Vertudes was a fingerprint examiner at the Alien Registration Division of the Bureau of
Immigration (BI)
 A certain Peng Villas, a news editor of the Philippine Weekly Newspaper, referred to then BI
Commissioner Rufus Rodriguez the complaints of Julie Buenaflor, Amy Cosino and Manuelito Lao,
against Vertudes.
 According to Villas, Vertudes convinced Buenaflor into paying the amount of P79,000.00 in exchange
for the processing of her visa, passport and other travel documents for Japan.
 Buenaflor delivered checks in the amount of P30,000, P20,000, P29,000. However, no visa was
delivered. Buenaflor insisted the Vertudes return her money, but she did not
 Villas also referred the complaint of Lao who allegedly paid P60,000.00 in exchange for a Chinese
Visa and a passport for Taiwan. Villas referred Cosino’s complaint alleging that Cosino collected from
Virginia Dumbrique, Jaime Santos Flores and Mariano Evangelista, the amounts of P20,000 each
upon Vertudes’ promise to provide them with touris visas. The promised passports and visas did not
materialize and despite many requests for the return of the money, Vertudes refused to comply.
 Commissioner Rodriguez directed Vertudes thourgh a memorandum to submit a sworn written
explanation.
 Vertudes alleged in her sown statement that Villas was not a member of the National Press Club as
he claimed to be. The amount issued by Buenaflor through a check was a loan she borrowed when
her brother became seriously ill. She claimed that the obligation has been fully settled.
 Vertudes claimed that it was in fact Buenaflor who is engaged in illegal recruitment through the use
of falsified or forged passports. She claimed that Buenaflor was in fact using Vertudes’s name in
dealing with ome immigration officials and employees to expedite the processing of the documents
of Buenaflor’s clients.
 Vertudes also claimed that her repeated refusal to “escort Buenaflor’s clients who were leaving led
Buenaflor to threaten her that she can easily use SB Check Nos. 0014797 and 0014798 as evidence to
file charges against Vertudes by making it appear that she (private respondent) gave the money
because of petitioner’s promise to facilitate her travel to Japan
 Commission Rodriguez found her explanation “unsatisfactory and [her] defense weak” hence
Vertudes was issued a preventive suspension for 60 days pending the investigation of the case.
 While the case is in progress, Villas died and Buenaflor continued with the case. She filed grave
misconduct against Vertudes in the BI. Lao and Cosino also filed another administrative case. Aside
from the administrative case, Buenaflor also filed an illegal recruitment and estafa case against
Vertudes.
 The Special Prosecutor found Vertudes guilty of grave misconduct and recommended her dismissal
from the service.
 The case filed by Buenaflor in the Office of the Ombudsman was referred to the Office of the City
Prosecutor stating that this was not office related and that the administrative aspect of the case had
already been undertaken by the BI.
 Vertudes filed a otion to reopen the case in the BI contending that the finding of the Ombudsman
that “the charges imputed against [petitioner] are not office related” clearly shows that she is not
administratively liable for grave misconduct.
 She moved for the re-opening of the case “to allow her to adduce further evidence mainly based on
the findings of the Ombudsman.”
  Commission Rodriquez issued an order adopting the resolution of Special Prosecutor dela Cruz
dismissing Vertudes from the service effective immediately with forfeiture of all benefits under the
law, with prejudice to her reinstatement in this Bureau and all its branches. DOJ Secretary Serafin
Cuevas affirmed the order of dismissal
 Vertudes appealed to the CSC raising the issues of lack of due process and lack of substantial
evidence. CSC dismissed her appeal and motion for reconsideration.
 Vertudes then filed for a petition for review in the CA whether or not BI and CSC violated her right to
due process. The CA likewise dismissed the petition for lack of merit and her motion for
reconsideration.

ISSUES
WON petitioner was accorded due process
WON there is substantial evidence to support that petitioner has committed grave misconduct
SC RULING
 SC held that the case proceedings has me the esstential requirements of due process as laid down in
the Ang Tibay vs CIR SC held that Vertudes was not denied her right to be heard.
 The right to cross-examine witnesses in judicial litigation and administrative tribunals is a
fundamental right. However, the right is personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly
by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has
had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily
forfeits the right to cross-examine
 Nothing on record shows that petitioner asked for cross-examination during the formal investigation
conducted by Special Prosecutor dela Cruz. When Vertudes filed her Motion to Re-open the case
with the BI, she did not question the lack of crossexamination during the investigation proceedings.
 The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one’s side or
an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
 This was clearly satisfied in the case at bar. Records show that petitioner not only gave her sworn
written explanation of the charges against her during the initial stage of the investigation, she also
submitted sworn counter-affidavit, motions to reopen, motions for reconsideration, appeals and
instant petitions.
 There is nothing essentially wrong in the head of a bureau adopting the recommendation of a
subordinate. What due process demands is for the chief of the bureau to personally weigh and
assess the evidence which the subordinate has gathered and not merely to rely on the
recommendation of said investigating officer
 The designated position is not determinative of the issue of whether the charge against her is work-
related. The allegations in the complaint against petitioner and her own admissions show that her
duties go beyond her job title and that the charge against her is connected with her position as an
employee of the BI.
 Petitioner even admitted in her memorandum that as an employee of the BI, her position was
utilized in connection with illegal recruitment.
 Petitioner contends that a promise to accommodate/ facilitate was not illegal recruitment activity.
 Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law
or standard of behavior, especially by a government official
 As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the
law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.
 Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person
who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or
for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others
  An act need not be tantamount to a crime for it to be considered as grave misconduct as in fact,
crimes involving moral turpitude are treated as a separate ground for dismissal under the
Administrative Code
 SC denied the petition and decision of the CA was affirmed.

DIOSDADO GUZMAN, ULYSSES URBIZTONDO, and ARIEL RAMACULA vs NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

FACTS
 Diosdado Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo and Ariel Ramacula are students of National Univeristy who
seek relief from the SC from the school’s “continued and persistent refusal to allow them to enroll.”
 The filed a petition for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction” dated August 7, 1984
 Nationaal University prevented the petitioners from enrolling in their respective cases because of
their participation in peaceful mass actions within the premises of the University
 However, the school answered that the petitioners’ failure to enroll for the first semester of the
school year 1984-1985 is due to their own fault and not because of their alleged exercise of their
constitutional and human rights.
 The school justified that Urbiztondo sought to re-enroll only on July 5, 1986 “when the enrolment
period was already closed.
 Guzman, meanwhile, has poor academic showing due to his activities in leading boycotts of classes”;
that when his father was notified of this development sometime in August, 1982, the latter had
demanded that his son “reform or else we will recall him to the province.”
 Guzman was also supposedly facing criminal charges for malicious mischief before the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Manila in connection with the destruction of properties of respondent University on
September 12, 1983
 Guzman was also one of the petitioners in Rockie San Juan, et al. vs. National University, et al
wherein the Court has admonished “the students involved (to) take advantage and make the most of
the opportunity given to them to study.”
 Ramacula was also similar with Guzman who continued to lead or actively participate in school
protests and demostrations.
 National University further stated that the petitioners have failures in their records, (and) are not of
good scholastic standing
 Respondent National University further asserted that it was beyond comprehension why petitioners,
who continually despise and villify respondent university and its officials and faculty members,
should persist in seeking enrollment in an institution that they hate

ISSUE
Whether or not a school or university have the right to deny acceptance of students without due process.

SC RULING
 On October 2, 1984, SC resolved to issue a mandatory injuction enjoining respondent to allow the
enrolment of petitioners for the coming semester without prejudice to any disciplinary proceeding to
which any or all of them may be subjected with their right to lawful defense recognized and
respected
 SC further held that as regards petitioner Diosdado Guzman, even if it be a fact that there is a
pending criminal charge against him for malicious mischief, that he be allowed to resume his studies
in the meanwhile.
 Petitioners likewise denied the allegations of the respondents such as late enrolment
 SC held that it was apparent from a reading of respondents’ comment and memorandum is the fact
that they had never conducted proceedings of any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-
students had indeed led or participated “in activities within the university premises, conducted
without prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes therein” 3 or
 perpetrated acts of “vandalism, coercion and intimidation, slander, noise barrage and other acts
showing disdain for and defiance of University authority.”
 The pendency of a civil case for damages and a criminal case for malicious mischief against petitioner
Guzman, cannot, without more, furnish sufficient warrant for his expulsion or debarment from re-
enrollment.
 Under the Education Act of 1982, students, have the right among others “to freely choose their
field of study subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation,
except in case of academic deficiency, or violation of disciplinary regulations.”
 Petitioners were being denied this right, or being disciplined, without due process, in violation of the
admonition in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools
 Manual: No penalty shall be imposed upon any student except for cause as defined in the Manual or
in the school rules and regulations and only after due investigation has been conducted.
 The imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due process. And it
bears stressing that due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail
proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of
justice
 The proceedings in student discipline cases may be summary; and cross-examination is not, contrary
to petitioners’ view, an essential part thereof
 Minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process:
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them
(2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if
desired
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behal
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by
the school authorities to hear and decide the case
 SC granted the petition and the National University is directed to allow the petitioners to reenroll or
otherwise continue with their respective courses, without prejudice to any disciplinary proceedings
to which any or all of them may be subjected in accordance with the standards herein set forth