Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • G.R. No. 166780 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    John Lyndon Rayos
    82 views2 pages
    Petitioner was a commercial airline pilot who paid a bribe to secure an official certification from the Air Transportation Office (ATO) in order to become a First Officer, but the ATO investigation found his certification had the same control number as someone else and discrepancies in his examination results. The ATO revoked his licenses and banned him from future exams. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court found that the ATO provided sufficient due process, as Petitioner was notified of the charges and given a chance to respond in writing, even without a formal complainant or trial-type proceeding. Administrative due process just requires an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    009. g.r. No. 166780 Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioner was a commercial airline pilot who paid a bribe to secure an official certification from the Air Transportation Office (ATO) in order to become a First Officer, but the ATO investigation found his certification had the same control number as someone else and discrepancies in his examination results. The ATO revoked his licenses and banned him from future exams. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court found that the ATO provided sufficient due process, as Petitioner was notified of the charges and given a chance to respond in writing, even without a formal complainant or trial-type proceeding. Administrative due process just requires an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    82 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 166780 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    John Lyndon Rayos
    Petitioner was a commercial airline pilot who paid a bribe to secure an official certification from the Air Transportation Office (ATO) in order to become a First Officer, but the ATO investigation found his certification had the same control number as someone else and discrepancies in his examination results. The ATO revoked his licenses and banned him from future exams. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court found that the ATO provided sufficient due process, as Petitioner was notified of the charges and given a chance to respond in writing, even without a formal complainant or trial-type proceeding. Administrative due process just requires an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SECOND DIVISION

    G.R. No. 166780, December 27, 2007

    F/O AUGUSTUS Z. LEDESMA, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS,


    AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE AND CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD,
    RESPONDENTS.

    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.

    You might also like