Tan v.
COMELEC (1994) - Vitug - Petitioner contends that COMELEC has committed
Plaintiff: Antonio Tan
Respondent: Commission on Eletions, Rustico Ilagan,
and Senforiano Alterado
Concept: Arising from the Same Facts
Brief facts: Tan, the incumbent City Prosecutor of
Davao, was designated as Vice Chairman of the City
Board of Canvassers. Alterado, the losing candidate,
filed a series of complaints with different bodies (HRET,
Ombudsman, COMELEC), accusing Tan along with
others of unlawful, erroneous, incomplete, and
irregular canvass. Tan moved to dismiss the complaint
filed in the COMELEC for lack of jurisdiction since it is
the Executive Branch that has the power to discipline
him.
Doctrine: COMELECs mandate includes its authority
to exercise direct and immediate supervision and
control over national and local officials or employees,
including members of any national or local law
enforcement agency and instrumentality of the
government, required by law to perform duties relative
to the conduct of elections.
FACTS:
1. Antonio Tan is the incumbent City Prosecutor of
Davao City. He was designated as Vice-Chairman of
the City Board of Canvassers of Davao for the May
11 1992 synchronized national and local elections.
2. On the basis of the votes canvassed, Manuel Garcia
was proclaimed as the winning candidate for a
congressional seat to represent the Second District
of Davao City.
3. Senforiano Alterado, a fellow candidate, filed a
number of cases questioning the validity of the
proclamation of Garcia and accusing the members
of the City Board of Canvassers of unlawful,
erroneous, incomplete and irregular canvass.
o Electoral protest was filed in the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
dismissed
o Falsification of Public Documents and
Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act before the Ombudsman
dismissed for lack of criminal intent
o Administrative charge instituted in
COMELEC against the City Board of
Canvassers for Misconduct, Neglect of
Duty, Gross Incompetence and Acts
Inimical to the Service
4. Tan moved to dismiss the administrative complaint
against him for alleged lack of jurisdiction of the
COMELEC, he being under the Executive
Department.
5. COMELEC denied the petition to dismiss.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC has jurisdiction over the
administrative complaint (YES)
RATIO:
COMELEC has jurisdiction over the administrative
complaint.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |1
grave abuse of discretion in continuing to take
action on the administrative case on the following
grounds:
o He is the city prosecutor of Davao and his
office belongs to the executive branch of
the government, more particularly to the
DOJ. As such, he is under the
administrative jurisdiction of said
department and not of COMELEC.
o The Civil Service Law provides that
department heads shall have jurisdiction to
investigate and decide matters involving
disciplinary action against officers under
their jurisdiction.
o Sec 2, Art IX of the Constitution which
authorizes COMELEC to deputize public
officers belonging to the executive
department is for the purpose of insuring
free, orderly and honest elections. It
doesnt include and comprehend
administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over
officials belonging to the executive branch.
o Sec 38 of PD 807 cited by COMELEC as
basis for their authority to investigate Tan
offers no help to respondents. Said
provision merely lays down the procedure
for administrative cases against non-
presidential appointees. Tan here is a
presidential appointee.
- SC is unable to sustain Tans petition.
- COMELECs authority under Section 2(6-8), Art. IX
is virtually all-encompassing when it comes to
election matters. In respect particularly to
sanctions against election offenses:
Sec. 2. The COMELEC shall exercise the ff powers
and functions:
(6) File, upon verified complaint, or on its own
initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or
exclusion of voters; investigate and, where
appropriate, prosecute cases of election
laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and
malpractices.
(8) Recommend to the President the
removal of any officer or employee it has
deputized or the imposition of any other
disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or
disobedience to its directive, order, or
decision.
Sec. 52, Art VII of the Omnibus Election Code
provides:
In addition to the powers and functions
conferred upon it by the Constitution, the
Commission shall have exclusive charge of the
enforcement and administration of all laws
relative to the conduct of elections for the
purpose of insuring free, orderly and honest
elections, and shall:
"a. Exercise direct and immediate supervision
and control over national and local officials or
employees, including members of any national or
local law enforcement agency and
instrumentality of the government required by law to
perform duties relative to the conduct of elections
- The administrative case pending with the COMELEC
is in relation to the performance of his duties as an
election canvasser and not as city prosecutor.
- COMELECs mandate includes its authority to
exercise direct and immediate supervision and
control over national and local officials or
employees, including members of any national or
local law enforcement agency and instrumentality
of the government, required by law to perform
duties relative to the conduct of elections.
- In order to ensure that such duly deputized officials
of government carry out their respective tasks, the
law has provided that upon COMELECs
recommendation, the corresponding proper
authority shall take appropriate action, either to
suspend or remove from office the officer found
guilty of the violation of election laws.
- COMELEC, prior to making its recommendation,
must first satisfy that there indeed has been an
infraction of the law. It is in the best position to
assess how its deputized officials performed their
duties.
- To say that it is without jurisdiction to look into
charges of election offenses would be to deny it the
proper exercise of such recommendatory power.
- COMELEC merely issues a recommendation, but it
is the executive department to which the charged
official belongs has the ultimate authority to
impose the disciplinary penalty.
- The law doesnt detract from, but is congruent
with, the general administrative authority of the
department of government concerned over its own
personnel.
- Tans assertion that Alterado has committed forum-
shopping is unacceptable. The investigation in the
Ombudsman and the one in COMELEC are entirely
different proceedings. An absolution from a
criminal charge isnt a bar to an administrative
prosecution. Also, the dismissal by COMELEC on
the ground that the case constituted an electoral
protest within the jurisdiction of HRET and not
COMELEC doesnt foreclose the matter of possible
liability, if warranted, of those who might have
improperly acted in the canvass of the votes.
DISPOSITIVE: Instant petition is DISMISSED.
Ocampo v. Office of the Ombdusman (2000) Buena, J.
Plaintiff: Jesus Ocampo
Respondent: Office of the Ombudsman and Maximo
Eclipse
Concept: Arising from the Same Facts
Brief Facts: Ocampo failed to remit the payment that
he directly received for the training of Engineers from
ADBN conducted by NIACONSULT. NIACONSULT filed a
complaint with the Ombudsman. Ocampo moved to
dismiss this complaint on the ground that the criminal
case failed against him was already dismissed, hence
the administrative complaint has no leg to stand on.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |2
Doctrine: In administrative cases, only substantial
evidence is required. It is such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Considering the difference in
the quantum of evidence as well as the procedure
followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and
administrative proceedings, the findings and
conclusions in one shouldnt necessarily be binding on
the other
FACTS:
1. Jesus Ocampo is the Training Coordinator of
NIACONSULT Inc, a subsidiary of the National
Irrigation Administration.
2. On March 21, 1988, K.N. Paudel of the Agricultural
Development bank of Nepal (ADBN) wrote a letter
to NIACONSULT requesting a training proposal on
small-scale community irrigation development.
3. Ocampo sent a letter-proposal requested by ADBN.
Another letter was sent my Ocampo to ADBN,
confirming the availability of NIACONSULT to
conduct the training program and formally
requesting the advance payment of 30% of the
training fees worth $9,600 or P204, 960.
4. NIACONSULT conducted the training program for 6
Nepalese Junior Engineers. ADBN, through its
representative Deutsche Gesselschaft Technische
Zusummenarbeit (GTZ) Gmbh Technical
Cooperation of the Federal Republic of Germany
paid to Ocampo the agreed training fee in 2
installments.
5. On April 1, 1991, NIACONSULT wrote a letter to
Ocampo, demanding the turn-over of the total
training fee paid by ADBN which Ocampo
personally received. Despite receipt of the letter,
Ocampo failed to remit the amount, prompting
NIACONSULT through its President Maximo Eclipse
to file an administrative case before the
Ombudsman for serious misconduct and/or fraud or
willful breach of trust.
6. Finding enough basis to proceed with the
administrative case, the Ombudsman issued an
order on Feb 17, 1992 requiring Ocampo to file his
counter-affidavit within 10 days from receipt with a
caveat that failure to file the same would be
deemed a waiver of his right to present
evidence. He did not file the counter-affidavit.
7. A year later, on March 17, 1993, Ombudsman
issued another order giving Ocampo another
chance to file his counter-affidavit. Again, this he
failed to do. Respondent was required to appear
before the Ombudsman to present evidence.
8. The Ombudsman issued a resolution which
recommended the discharge of Ocampo from
service with forfeiture of benefits and special
perpetual disqualification.
9. Ocampo moved for reconsideration and to re-open
the case, claiming that he was denied due process
because the case was resolved on the basis of the
evidence of respondent without affording him the
opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and to
present his evidence. MFR was denied.
10. Ocampo filed instant petition which the SC gave
due course.
11. While the case is pending, Ocampo filed a
Manifestation stating that the criminal complaint
for stafa and falsification filed against him based
on the same facts which gave rise to the
administrative case was dismissed by the RTC.
With said dismissal, Ocampo is claiming that the
administrative case can no longer stand on its own
and therefore should also be dismissed.
ISSUES:
1. WON the dismissal of the criminal complaint also
warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint
(NO)
2. WON Ocampo was denied due process (NO)
RATIO:
1. The dismissal of the criminal case will not
foreclose administrative action filed against
Ocampo.
- In dismissing the criminal complaint, the RTC was
simply saying that the prosecution was unable to
prove the guilt of Ocampo beyond reasonable
doubt, a condition sine qua non for conviction.
- The lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt doesnt
mean an absence of any evidence whatsoever for
there is another class of evidence which, though
insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, is adequate in civil casespreponderance of
evidence.
- In administrative cases, only substantial evidence
is required. It is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Considering the difference
in the quantum of evidence as well as the
procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in
criminal and administrative proceedings, the
findings and conclusions in one shouldnt
necessarily be binding on the other.
2. Ocampo wasnt denied due process.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |3
- The essence of due process is the opportunity to
be heard. He has been amply accorded the
opportunity to be heard.
o He was required to answer the complaint
against him.
o In fact, he was given a considerable length
of time to submit his counter-affidavit. It
took more than one year from February 17,
1992 before he was considered to have
waived his right to file his counter-affidavit.
o He was even given a last chance to file his
answer on March 17, 1993.
- His failure to present evidence is solely of his own
making and he cannot escape his own remissness
by passing the blame on the graft investigator.
- His claim that he wasnt given any notice of the
order declaring him to have waived his right to file
his counter-affidavit and allowing the ombudsman
to present evidence ex parte is umeritorious.
o The orders of of the Ombudsman requiring
him to submit his counter-affidavits
contained a warning that failure to do so
would constitute a waiver on his part.
o The Ombudsman need not issue another
order notifying him that he has waived his
right. He also need not be notified of the ex
parte hearing
- Ocampos claim that he made requests for the
production of the documents alleged to be material
to his defense is not backed up by proof. If it were
true that the graft investigator didnt act on such
requests, then he shouldve filed the proper motion
before the Ombudsman for the production of the
docusments.
- The record of this case shows that Ocampo is guilty
of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the
government when he failed to remit the payment
of the training program.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition denied.