Ombudsman VS Nicasio
Ombudsman VS Nicasio
Ombudsman VS Nicasio
VS.
NICASIO A. CONTI, Respondent
G.R. No. 221296 February 22, 2017
FACTS:
The case stemmed from the filing of a complaint by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Ombudsman
against Commissioner Narciso S. Conti, et.al. of the PCGG for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
The Ombudsman ordered the PCGG Commissioner to file their respective counter-affidavits. All but Conti
complied with the directive. Subsequently, two (2) criminal Information against all of them were filed before
the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
The Ombudsman found all five (5) PCGG Commissioners administratively liable for Dishonesty,
Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
Conti moved for reconsideration of the Ombudsman decision. Claiming that he was denied due process
and sought the reversal of the findings of the Ombudsman. He averred that he only learned of the filling of
the cases before Sandiganbayan for the first time through news reports. That he was shocked and
surprised by the filing of the case because he was never informed and he never received any subpoena
from the Ombudsman during the conduct of the administrative and criminal investigation.
The Ombudsman denied Conti’s motion for reconsideration thus Conti file a petition for review before the
CA.
The CA granted Conti’s petition and found that Conti was indeed deprived of due process as he did not
receive a copy of the Ombudsman’s order requiring him to file a counter-affidavit; such denial of due
process was not cured by the filing of his motion for reconsideration as it was filed precisely to raise the
issue of the violation of his right to due process; hence he was deprived of a fair opportunity to squarely
and intelligently answer the accusations hurled against him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Honorable CA (12th Division) grievously erred in finding that Respondent Nicasio A.
Conti was denied due process.
HELD:
No. Conti was deprived of his Constitutional Right of Due Process. Section 1, Article III of the 1987
Constitution guarantees that: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of law.
Procedural due process is that which hears before It condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial. In administrative proceedings, due process is satisfied when a person is notified of
the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend oneself.
In this case, Conti was never given an opportunity to air his side. He was not furnished with a copy of the
Ombudsman order requiring him to file a counter-affidavit which was admitted by the Ombudsman. This
suffices as proof that Conti was not properly apprised of the cases against him.
The doctrine consistently adhered to by the Court is that a decision rendered without due process is void ab
initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally. A decision is void for lack of due process if, as a result, a
party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard. The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of
basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction. When the denial of the fundamental right of
due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction. Any
judgment or decision rendered notwithstanding such violation may be regarded as a lawless thing.
The CA was correct in decreeing that Conti was deprived of his constitutional right to due process. But it
should have ordered the remand of the case to the Ombudsman for appropriate action. The CA should
have been more prudent to refrain from rendering judgment and instead reman the case to the
Ombudsman to provide Conti the opportunity that he was deprived of.
The case was REMANDED to the Ombudsman for appropriate action.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: