Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 160 views

    Melendres V PAGC

    Uploaded by

    Rimvan Le Sufeor
    The petitioner, Dr. Fernando Melendres, was accused of various offenses by 15 physicians from the Lung Center of the Philippines where he served as executive director. A fact-finding committee was formed and found prima facie evidence against the petitioner. He was then suspended and charges were filed against him before the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC). The PAGC ordered the petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit, participate in a preliminary conference, and submit a position paper. However, the petitioner failed to submit the position paper and instead filed for certiorari. The Court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner's right to due process was not violated as he was given notice of the charges and an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Melendres V PAGC

    Uploaded by

    Rimvan Le Sufeor
    160 views2 pages
    The petitioner, Dr. Fernando Melendres, was accused of various offenses by 15 physicians from the Lung Center of the Philippines where he served as executive director. A fact-finding committee was formed and found prima facie evidence against the petitioner. He was then suspended and charges were filed against him before the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC). The PAGC ordered the petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit, participate in a preliminary conference, and submit a position paper. However, the petitioner failed to submit the position paper and instead filed for certiorari. The Court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner's right to due process was not violated as he was given notice of the charges and an

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Melendres-v-PAGC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner, Dr. Fernando Melendres, was accused of various offenses by 15 physicians from the Lung Center of the Philippines where he served as executive director. A fact-finding committee was formed and found prima facie evidence against the petitioner. He was then suspended and charges were filed against him before the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC). The PAGC ordered the petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit, participate in a preliminary conference, and submit a position paper. However, the petitioner failed to submit the position paper and instead filed for certiorari. The Court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner's right to due process was not violated as he was given notice of the charges and an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    160 views2 pages

    Melendres V PAGC

    Uploaded by

    Rimvan Le Sufeor
    The petitioner, Dr. Fernando Melendres, was accused of various offenses by 15 physicians from the Lung Center of the Philippines where he served as executive director. A fact-finding committee was formed and found prima facie evidence against the petitioner. He was then suspended and charges were filed against him before the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC). The PAGC ordered the petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit, participate in a preliminary conference, and submit a position paper. However, the petitioner failed to submit the position paper and instead filed for certiorari. The Court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner's right to due process was not violated as he was given notice of the charges and an

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    163859 August 15, 2012

    DR. FERNANDO A. MELENDRES, M.D., Executive Director of the Lung Center of the
    Philippines (LCP), Petitioner
    v.
    PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION, acting through its duly authorized
    representative, COMMISSIONER CESAR D. BUENAFLOR, ALBERTO G. ROMULO,
    Executive Secretary, AND SUSAN SY NAVAL, THERESA M. ALCANTARA, JOSE PEPITO
    M. AMORES, VINCENT M. BALANAG, JR., GUILLERMO G. BARROA, JR., REY A.
    DESALES, NORBERTO A. FRANCISCO, DAVID F. GEOLLEGUE, BENILDA B. GALVEZ,
    LUISITO F. IDOLOR, VICTORIA C. IDOLOR, BUENAVENTURA V. MEDINA, JR., NEWELL
    R. NACPIL, RAOUL C. VILLARETE and GUILLERMO T. MADLANG-AWA, all of the Lung
    Center of the Philippines (LCP), Respondents.

    FACTS:
    A complaint against Dr. Fernando A. Melendres was filed by 15 physicians of the Lung
    Center of the Philippines. The Secretary of Health issued Dept. Order No. 119, s. 2002 creating
    a fact-finding committee to look into the charges against the petitioner as well as the counter-
    charges filed by him against Dr. Jose Amores, one of the complainant-physicians, and 14
    others. The Committee submitted its final report on June 28, 2002, finding prima facie case
    against petitioner for four of the offenses included in the complaint.

    The LCP Board issued a resolution, recommending, among others, to the Office of the
    President the filing of formal administrative charges against the petitioner and his preventive
    suspension pending investigation. The complainant-physicians also sent a Manifesto to then-
    President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo expressing their disenchantment with the petitioner, citing
    his abusive behavior, immorality, and unlawful personnel actions.

    On Oct. 22, 2002, a Complaint-Affidavit was filed before the Presidential Anti-Graft
    Commission (PAGC) by the individual respondents in this case containing the same charges
    subject to the investigation of the fact-finding committee. Admin. Order No. 39 was issued by
    Exec. Sec.Alberto G. Romulo, directing PAGC to conduct an investigation against petitioner,
    ordering his suspension for 90-days, and directing the Secretary of Heath to appoint an interim
    Officer-In-Charge.

    PAGC Hearing Commissioner Cesar Buenaflor issued an order dated Nov. 8. 2002,
    directing the petitioner to file within 10 days his counter-affidavit to which the latter complied on
    Nov. 18. The preliminary conference commenced on Nov. 21 and was continued on Nov. 28,
    during which the parties were directed to submit within 5 days or until Dec. 4 their respective
    position paper. Commissioner Buenaflor also declared that based on the pleadings, the case
    shall be submitted for resolution.
    The petitioner filed a Motion for Inhibition and Motion for Formal Hearing and/or
    Investigation, invoking Sec.22, Rule II of URACC, as a response to the PAGC order. Both
    motions were denied by the hearing commissioner.

    Instead of submitting their position paper, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before
    the CA with prayer for temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction,
    arguing that the termination was done with undue haste and is a violation of petitioner’s right to
    substantive and procedural due process. However, CA affirmed PAGC’s order stating that the
    petitioner’s right to due process was not violated since Sec.3, Rule II of the New Rules of
    Procedure of PAGC authorizes the hearing commissioner to determine whether or not there is a
    necessity for conducting formal hearings. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by petitioner
    but is likewise denied by the CA.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not petitioner’s right to substantive and procedural due process has been
    violated by PAGC order of submitting the case for resolution.

    HELD:
    Petition is denied. Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all
    situations require a trial-type proceeding. It 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.
    More often, this opportunity is conferred through written pleadings that the parties submit to
    present their charges and defenses. But as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his
    or her interests in due course, said party is not denied due process.

    Since petitioner was given the opportunity to defend himself from the charges against
    him, as he submitted a Counter-Affidavit with the PAGC, though he failed to comply with the
    order for the submission of position paper, he cannot complain of denial of due process.

    You might also like