LUMIQUED V. EXEVEA G.R. No. 117565. November 18, 1997
FACTS:
Arsenio P. Lumiqued was the Regional Director of The Department of Agrarian Reform – Cordillera Autonomous Region.
On Nov. 16, 1989 Jeannette Ober Zamudio charged Lumiqued with Malversation through falsification of public documents. He allegedly falsified gasoline receipts amounting to Php 44,172.46 and made unliquidated cash advances amounting to Php 116,000.00. Zamudio also charged him with oppression and harassment after being relieved without just cause after filing the 2 cases against Lumiqued.
May 20, 1992 Acting Justice Secretary Eduardo Montenegro issued Department Order No. 145, creating a committee to investigate complaints against Lumiqued.
June 23, 1992 Lumiqued submitted his affidavit alleging that the reason the cases were filed against him was to extort money from him. He also admitted that his average daily consumption was 108.45Li which is an aggregate consumption of the 5 service vehicle issued to him and that the receipts were turned over to him by drivers for reimbursement.
July 3 and 10 Committee hearings on the complaints were conducted and Lumiqued was not assisted by a counsel since he was confident that he can defend himself.
July 17, 1992 he was unable to attend the third hearing since he suffered a stroke on July 10.
July 31, 1992 Investigating Committee issued a report finding Lumiqued liable for all charges against him
December 17, 1992 Lumiqued filed a motion for reconsideration.
April 1, 1993 The Committee informed Lumiqued that the report was already forwarded to the President.
May 12, 1993 President Ramos issued AO No 52 finding Lumiqued administratively liable for dishonesty in the alteration of 15 gas receipts and he was dismissed from service.
August 31, 1993 Lumiqued filed a Petition for appeal which was denied. He then file a second motion for reconsideration, alleging that he was denied constitutional right to counsel during the hearing.
September 28, 1993 The second motion was denied.
May 19, 1994 Lumiqued passed away.
Petitioners fault the investigating committee for its failure to inform Lumiqued of his right to counsel during the hearing. They maintained that his right to counsel could not be waived unless the waiver was in writing and in the presence of a counsel.
ISSUE:
WON the right to have a counsel during an administrative hearing is necessary.
HELD:
NO. Lumiqued, a Regional Director of a major department in the executive branch of the government, graduated from the University of the Philippines (Los Baos) with the degree of Bachelor of Science major in Agriculture, was a recipient of various scholarships and grants, and underwent training seminars both here and abroad. Hence, he could have defended himself if need be, without the help of counsel, if the truth were on his side. This, apparently, was the thought he entertained during the hearings he was able to attend.
The right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by the Constitution or the law.
In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one's side. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even much more creditably as it is more practicable than oral arguments, through pleadings. An actual hearing is not always an indispensable aspect of due process. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process.Moreover, this constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Lumiqueds appeal and his subsequent filing of motions for reconsideration cured whatever irregularity attended the proceedings conducted by the committee.