In Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v.
National Labor Relations
Commission,[23] this Court held that:
[A]ctual adversarial proceeding becomes necessary only for clarification
or when there is a need to propound searching questions to unclear
witnesses. This is a procedural right which the employee must, however,
ask for it is not an inherent right, and summary proceedings may be
conducted. This is to correct the common but mistaken perception that
procedural due process entails lengthy oral arguments. Hearings in
administrative proceedings and before quasi-judicial agencies are neither
oratorical contests nor debating skirmishes where cross examination
skills are displayed. Non-verbal devices such as written explanations,
affidavits, positions papers or other pleadings can establish just as
clearly and concisely aggrieved parties predicament or defense. What is
essential is ample opportunity to be heard, meaning, every kind of
assistance that management must accord the employee to prepare
adequately for his defense.
While this Court looks with disfavor on affidavits of desistance, still,
its effect on the instant case cannot be ignored. Doromals Affidavit
of Desistance includes an explicit admission that he fabricated the
charges against Bungubung. Therefore, Doromals Affidavit of
Desistance is an express repudiation of the material points alleged
in his Complaint-Affidavit, and not a mere expression of his lack of
interest to pursue his complaints against Bungubung. Since
Doromal willfully and knowingly executed his Affidavit of
Desistance, there being no showing that he was made to do so
fraudulently or under duress, then it may be admitted and
considered as evidence which considerably puts into question the
probative value of the Affidavit-Complaint he executed earlier and
he now repudiates.
In Montemayor v. Bundalian,[29] this Court laid down the following guidelines for
the judicial review of decisions rendered by administrative agencies in the exercise
of their quasi-judicial power:
First, the burden is on the complainant to prove by substantial evidence
the allegations in his complaint. Substantial evidence is more than a
mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even
if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.
Second, in reviewing administrative decisions of the executive branch of
the government, the findings of facts made therein are to be respected so
long as they are supported by substantial evidence. Hence, it is not for
the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the
credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of
the administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of
evidence. Third, administrative decisions in matters within the executive
jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of gross abuse of discretion,
fraud, or error of law. These principles negate the power of the
reviewing court to re-examine the sufficiency of the evidence in an
administrative case as if originally instituted therein, and do not
authorize the court to receive additional evidence that was not submitted
to the administrative agency concerned.
Bungubung is being charged with the administrative offense of Grave
Misconduct, which has been authoritatively defined in Amosco v. Judge
Magro[35] as:
Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal
meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects
his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects
his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all
times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the
character of the officer x x x. It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance,
or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer, must have
direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official
duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional
neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office. x x x.
