Roquero v. Abutal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Capt. Wilfredo G. Roquero, a Special Police Captain at the University of the Philippines-Manila (UP-Manila) Philippine General Hospital (PGH) Security Division, was charged with Grave Misconduct. The complaint, filed by private respondent Imelda O. Abutal, a security guard applicant, alleged that Roquero proposed a sexual relationship in exchange for facilitating her application and securing a permanent position. Despite Abutal's rejection, Roquero allegedly persisted in demanding sexual favors. This conduct was cited as a violation of University Rules and Regulations on the Discipline of UP Faculty and Employees, in relation to Civil Service Law. Procedural History: Following the filing of the complaint on October 1, 1998, Roquero was placed under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days. An Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) was constituted to hear the case. The prosecution, represented by various prosecutors, presented Abutal as its sole witness. After cross-examination, the prosecution was granted time to submit its Formal Offer of Evidence by July 16, 1999. However, the prosecution failed to meet this deadline and repeatedly requested postponements for hearings. On October 22, 1999, Roquero filed a motion to declare the complainant as having waived her right to formally offer exhibits due to this failure. This motion remained unresolved for nearly five years. On May 19, 2004, Roquero filed a motion to dismiss based on the prosecution's failure to offer evidence, the ADT's inaction, and the alleged harassment. The prosecution then filed its Comment/Opposition on May 26, 2004, stating that a Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits had been filed on January 24, 2004, attributing the delay to the resignation of the original prosecutor and the illness of the stenographer. On June 8, 2004, the ADT denied Roquero's motion to dismiss and admitted the prosecution's exhibits, directing Roquero to present his evidence. A motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied on November 9, 2004. The Petition: Petitioner Capt. Wilfredo G. Roquero filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution. The Court of Appeals had denied his earlier petition for certiorari (under Rule 65) which sought to overturn the ADT's orders. Roquero argued that the ADT committed grave abuse of discretion by denying his motion to dismiss, primarily due to the extraordinary delay in resolving his motion to declare the prosecution's waiver of evidence and the subsequent admission of the prosecution's belatedly filed formal offer of evidence. He contended that this delay violated his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. The Supreme Court found merit in the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision and ordering the dismissal of the administrative case against Roquero for violation of his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied petitioner's motion to dismiss the administrative case, and whether the failure of the ADT to resolve petitioner's motion to declare the complainant as having waived her right to submit her Formal Offer of Exhibit, and the subsequent admission of the belatedly filed Formal Offer of Exhibit, violated petitioner's constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) of the University of the Philippines-Manila is ORDERED to DISMISS the administrative case against Capt. Wilfredo G. Roquero for violation of his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion to dismiss and the violation of the right to speedy disposition: The Supreme Court found merit in the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals' ruling. The Court emphasized that while Section 27 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service states that failure to submit a formal offer of evidence is a waiver, the ADT's act of allowing the prosecution to submit its offer almost five years later, without resolving petitioner's motion filed in 1999, was an unreasonable delay. The Court noted that petitioner's failure to present his own evidence was a reasonable consequence of the unresolved motion. The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' reasoning that the admission of the exhibits cured the delay, stating that the five-year delay in resolving the motion was not justified. The Court found the prosecution's explanation for the delay insufficient and noted the ADT's failure to question the prolonged delay. The Court reiterated that while administrative investigations are not bound by strict technical rules, they must not violate the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. The Court applied the balancing test for speedy disposition, considering the length of delay (almost five years), the unreasonableness of the delay, the timely assertion of the right by the petitioner, and the prejudice caused by the delay, including the petitioner being under preventive suspension during the stagnant proceedings. The Court concluded that the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable delay was violated, rendering the adjudication of cases prompt and serving the ends of justice.
Main Doctrine
The constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases is violated by unreasonable and unjustified delays in resolving motions, even in administrative proceedings, which prejudice the rights of the respondent.