Melendres V PAGC

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.

Melendres V PAGC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Melendres V PAGC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Melendres V PAGC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

163859 August 15, 2012

You might also like