A.M. No. P-13-3137 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. UMAIMA L. SILONGAN, ABIE M. AMILIL, AND SALICK U. PANDA, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the undersigned investigating justice respectfully recommends to the Honorable Supreme Court the following: The case be Re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; Atty. Silongan and Mr. Amilil be held liable for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty; Mr. Panda be held liable for Simple [Neglect of Duty]; Considering that Atty. Silongan had already retired and Mr. Amilil resigned from Office, they be Fined in the amount of P40,000 with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification [from] re-employment in any government service; Considering that this is Mr. Panda's first administrative complaint and absent any showing that he acted with malice, he be Fined the amount of P5,000. Respectfully submitted, August 19, 2013, Cagayan de Oro City. [21] In a Resolution dated 19 November 2013, [22] the Court directed the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 14 to furnish the Court with the present and correct address of Silongan, considering that a resolution addressed to Silongan was returned unserved with notation on the letter-envelope: "RTS-No Longer Connected." Both the Executive Judge of RTC Branch 13 and Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 15 sent letters to the Court informing it of the present address of Silongan. [23] Thereafter, all court processes were delivered to Silongan's present address. The Ruling of the Court We adopt the recommendations of the Investigating Justice for Silongan and Amilil, but modify it for Panda. The Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which govern the conduct of disciplinary and non-disciplinary proceedings in administrative cases, clearly provide that "[administrative investigations shall be conducted without strict recourse to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings." [24] Thus, administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. [25] In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. [26] It is enough that the party is given the chance to be heard before the case is decided. [27] Due process is not violated when a person is not heard because he or she has chosen, for whatever reason, not to be heard. [28] If one opts to be silent when one has a right to speak, one cannot later be heard to complain that he or she was unduly silenced. [29] In the present case, the Investigating Justice set six hearings, and both Silongan and Amilil were duly notified of the hearings and the administrative case against them. As aptly found by the Investigating Justice: Silongan was furnished a copy of the Decision of the Supreme Court ordering the OCA to investigate her alleged participation in the authentication of questioned Decisions by the Judge Indar. Moreover, the benefits due her from her early retirement were put on hold because of the pending investigation. These