133. Geronga vs.

Varela

TITLE BENJAMIN B. GERONGA, petitioner, vs. HON. EDUARDO VARELA,

as City Mayor of Cadiz City, respondent.

GR NUMBER G.R. No. 160846.

DATE February 22, 2008.

PONENTE Austria-Martinez, J

NATURE/ Failure to raise particular arguments is deemed waived; Aspects of

KEYWORDS Proceedings; Administrative law

FACTS Petitioner is an Engineer IV at General Services Department of

Cadiz, was involved in 2 admin cases: (1) Administrative Case for
Unjust Vexation, Contempt, Insubordination, Conduct Unbecoming a
Public Officer, and Alarm and Scandal; (2) and Administrative Case
for Grave Misconduct and Engaging in Partisan Political Activity. The City
Legal Officer recommended DISMISSAL FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT and
for partisan politics. City Mayor Varela approved both recommendations
and issued Memo addressed to Geronga imposing the penalty of dismissal.
Geronga filed w/ CSC a NOTICE OF APPEAL (w/o counsel), and further
filed a Joint Memo in w/c he discussed ONLY the second case against
him (still w/o counsel). CSC granted the appeal thereby reinstating the
Petitioner. Varela filed Motion for Reconsideration with the CSC,
contending that Geronga could no longer be reinstated as he failed to
appeal the first case against him which ultimately dismissed Geronga,
thus it became final and executory. CSC granted the MR in favor of
Petitioner on the ground that Gerango failed to raise the first case against
him which has already attained finality.

ISSUE(S) 1. Whether or not Gerango was denied the due process of law

RULING(S) Yes.
The Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner on the first case
filed against him, upon closer inspection, reveal that he was
dismissed for an act which was not alleged in the administrative
charge filed against him. The sworn complaint filed against Geronga
in the first case pertains solely on the alleged defamatory
statements made in his Letter-Answer to the Sworn Complaint and
this according to Varela constitutes Grave Misconduct punishable by
dismissal from the government service. There is no showing that
the Memorandum dismissing Geronga appear that petitioner was
charged with Grave Misconduct or that he was held to answer for
his alleged defamatory statements in the abovementioned letter
hence, the Memorandum Dismissing the petitioner is void ab initio.

Therefore, there was nothing for Geronga to appeal from since the
Memorandum containing both the first and second administrative
case against him is non-existent
The Court explained “Two fundamental requirements of due
process in administrative cases are that a person must be duly
informed of the charges against him; and that he cannot be
convicted of an offense or crime with which he was not charged. A
deviation from these requirements renders the proceeding invalid
and the judgment issued therein a lawless thing that can be struck
down anytime.”
.