Scribd
Upload
81 views1 page

Administrative Due Process Case

The case involved a complaint filed against Autencio by Mañara with the Office of the Mayor for misconduct and dishonesty. Autencio was found guilty and dismissed, claiming a lack of due process. The courts ruled otherwise, finding Autencio was informed of charges and participated in proceedings. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled Autencio was not denied substantive due process.

Uploaded by

Maria Lourdes Dator
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
81 views1 page

Administrative Due Process Case

The case involved a complaint filed against Autencio by Mañara with the Office of the Mayor for misconduct and dishonesty. Autencio was found guilty and dismissed, claiming a lack of due process. The courts ruled otherwise, finding Autencio was informed of charges and participated in proceedings. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled Autencio was not denied substantive due process.

Uploaded by

Maria Lourdes Dator
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Autencio v.

Mañara (2005)

Doctrine: In administrative cases, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side
suffices to meet the requirements of due process. A formal or trial-type hearing is not always
necessary. For the purpose of ascertaining the truth, an investigation will be conducted, during
which technical rules applicable to judicial proceedings need not always be adhered to. And
where the party has the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured.

Summary: The case stems from the lodging of a complaint by Mañ ara against Autencio with the
Office of the Mayor of Cotabato City for misconduct and dishonesty. A penalty of dismissal was
imposed, on the finding of guilt for misconduct. Autencio claimed that she was denied due
process because she had waived her right to present her evidence at a formal hearing and
agreed to submit the case for resolution, only because of the manifestation of the complainant
and the hearing officer that she could be held liable only for the lesser offense of simple
negligence. The CSC, CA, and SC ruled otherwise, since she was informed of the charge and
participated in the proceedings.

Issue: W/N Mañ ara was denied Substantive Due Process?

Ruling: No. On the formal charge against her, she had received sufficient information which, in
fact, enabled her to prepare her defense. She filed her Answer controverting the charges against
her and submitted Affidavits of personnel in the Assessor’s Office to support her claim of
innocence. A prehearing conference was conducted by the legal officer, during which she—
assisted by her counsel—had participated. Finally, she was able to appeal the ruling of City
Mayor Badoy to the CSC, and then to the CA.

You might also like