Umali Vs Guingona GR No 131124 29

March 1999
Facts: Osmundo Umali was appointed Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. However, a
confidential memorandum against him was sent to President Ramos and thus forwarded to Presidential
Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption for investigation. Umali complied with the pleadings and hearings set
by PCAGC. Umali and his lawyer did not raise clarficatory questions during the hearing. PCAGC foud prima facie
evidence to support the charges and President Ramos issued AO 152 dismissing Umali. He appealed to the Office
of the President but was denied. He elevated it to RTC alleging that he was not accorded due process and
deprived of security of tenure. Petition for Certiorari was denied. CA reversed the decision and was elevated to
SC. One of Umali raised the issue of the constitutionality of PCAGC as a government agency.

Issue: Whether or not the contention of Umali was raised at the earliest opportunity?

Decision: In lieu of the supervening events AO 152 was lifted. Regarding the constitutionality of PCAGC, it was
only posed by petitioner in his motion for reconsideration before the RTC. It was certainly too late to raise the
said issue for the first time at such a late stage of the proceedings.
Umali vs GuingonaG.R. No. 131124.

March 29, 1999

Ponente: Purisima, J.

Topic: Requisites of Judicial Review – Earliest Opportunity

FACTS: Petition for review of dismissed the petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction brought
bypetitioner against the respondents. On October 27, 1993, Petitioner Osmundo Umali was appointed
Regional Director of the BIR by then President Ramos. He was assigned in Manila, from Nov. 29, 1993
– Mar. 15, 1994, and in Makati, from Mar. 16, 1994 – Aug. 4, 1994. On August 1, 1994, the President
received a confidential memorandum against the petitioner for alleged violations of internal revenue
laws, rules and regulations during his incumbency as Regional Director. The day after the receipt of
the confidential memorandum, Ramos authorized the issuance of an Order for the preventive
suspension of Umali and immediately referred the Complaint to the Presidential Commission on
Anti-Graft and Corruption (PCAGC), for investigation. Umali was informed of the charges, and was
directed to provide answers to the inquiries, to which he did. After evaluating the evidence on record,
the PCAGC issued its Resolution of Sept. 23, 1994, finding a prima facie evidence to support six (6) of
the twelve (12) charges against petitioner. Upon the recommendation of the PCAGC, Ramos issued
Admin. Order 152, dismissing Umali from the service, with forfeiture of retirement and all benefits.

ISSUES: Whether or Not:

(1) AO No. 152 violated petitioner's right to Security of Tenure.

(2) Petitioner was denied due process of law

(3) PCAGC is a validly constituted govt. agency and petitioner can raise the issue of constitutionality
belatedly in its motion for reconsideration of the trial courts decision.

(4) The ombudsman's resolution dismissing the charges against the petitioner is still basis for the
petitioner's dismissal with forfeiture of benefits as ruled in AO No. 152

Held:

(1) Claim of CESO eligibility is anemic of evidentiary support. Burden of proof was on Umali, but he
failed to adduce sufficient evidence.

(1) Petitioner was not denied the right to due processes before the PCAGC. Records show petitioner
filed his answer and other pleadings with respect to his alleged violations of internal revenue laws and
regulations and he attended the hearings before the investigatory body

(2) The constitutionality of PCAGC was only posed by the petitioner in his motion for reconsideration
before the RTC of Makati. It was too late to raise the said issue for the first time at such late stage of
the proceedings

(4) Charges included in AO No. 152 were based on the results of investigation conducted by the
PCAGC and not on the criminal charges before the Ombudsman.The petition is dismissable; issues
posited do not constitute a valid legal basis for overturning decision arrived at by the CA. Taking into
consideration that the charges in the Ombudsman were dismissed, BIR and Commissioner’s office
were no longer interested in pursuing the case, and due to the position taken by the Sol. Gen, The
Court hereby GRANTS the petition. AO No. 152 is considered LIFTED, and petitioner can be allowed to
retire with full benefits.