Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G.R. No. 166780 Case Digest
G.R. No. 166780 Case Digest
FACTS
Petitioner was a Second Officer commercial airline pilot of the Philippine Airlines
(PAL) aspiring to become a First Officer. To secure Air Transport Office-Airmen
Examination Board (ATO-AEB) Certification of Official Release, to be submitted to
PAL and ATO for purposes of obtaining a simulator training schedule and a check
ride permit, paid certain Leopoldo Areopagita P25,000.
The ATO investigating committee issued a resolution finding that the control number on
petitioner's ATO-AEB certification was exactly the same control number previously
issued to a certain Ernest Stephen V. Pante. The committee further revealed a disparity in
the examination results entered in the ATO-AEB certification presented by petitioner and
in the entries of examination grades in the ATO-AEB Index Card kept in the ATO
records.
The Committee thereafter recommended that all the airmen licenses of F/O Ledesma be
revoked and that he be banned from taking any theoretical examination in the future at
the Airmen Examination Board.
ISSUE STATEMENT
WAS THE PETITIONER DENIED DUE PROCESS IN THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE AND THE CIVIL
AERONAUTICS BOARD?
RATIO/RULINGS
No. Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations
require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of
the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In
administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity
for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the
minimum requirements of due process.
ANALYSIS
Petitioner's complaint that he did not fully appreciate the nature of the charges against
him because the ATO even without an ostensible complainant against him failed to
state or announce that petitioner was being charged with falsification, is incorrect. The
absence of a complainant also did not affect the regularity of the investigation.
Administrative agency may investigate an irregularity on its own initiative.
Concerning the right to representation, it is sufficient that petitioner's counsel of
choice was allowed to submit in writing his observations on the investigation.
The ATO has complied with the minimum standards of administrative due process in
investigating petitioner on the fabrication of his ATO-AEB certification and the
conclusions arrived at by the ATO were supported by evidence on record and
affirmed by the CAB and the Court of Appeals
CONCLUSION
The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Administrative due process
cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense for it is enough that
the party is given the chance to be heard before the case against him is decided.
Moreover, petitioner's airman license cannot be considered a property right, it is but a
mere privilege, subject to the restrictions imposed by the ATO and its revocation if
warranted.